A statute of limitations dictates the time period within which a legal proceedin

g
must begin.
Generally, the time limit starts to run on the date the offense was committed, n
ot from the time the crime was
discovered or the accused was identified.
The purpose of a statute of limitations in a criminal case is to ensure the
prompt prosecution of criminal charges and thereby spare the accused of the burd
en
of having to defend against stale charges after memories may have faded or evide
nce
is lost.
There is no statute of limitations for federal crimes punishable by death, nor f
or
certain federal crimes of terrorism.

Unless the crime is exceptionally heinous in nature, social justice as enacted t

hrough law has compromised that
lesser crimes from long ago are best let be rather than distract attention from
contemporary serious crimes.

One is that over time evidence of all sorts can be corrupted or disappear. Memor
ies fade, crime scenes are changed,
and companies get rid of records.
Another reason is that people want to get on with their lives and not have lega
l battles from their past come up
unexpectedly
Although the majority of federal crimes are governed by the general five year
statute of limitations,
Some crimes have longer statute of limitation:
Negligence: personal injury - 1 to 2 years; intentional wrongdoing - 1 to 6 year
s
Breach of oral contract - 2 to 6 years
Breach of written contract - 3 to 6 years
Medical Malpractice - 1 to 4 years from act or occurrence of injury or 6 months
to 3 years from discovery
Legal Malpractice - 1 to 3 years from date of discovery or 2 to 5 years from the
date of the wrongful act
Fraud or mistake - 3 to 6 years from the date of discovery
A claim against a government entity - usually less than 1 year
Collection of federal income taxes - 10 years
State income taxes - varies from state-to-state; some states have no limit
Property damage - 2 to 10 years
Enforcement of civil judgment - 5 to 25 years
There may be a number of factors that will affect the tolling of a statute of li
mitations.
In many cases, the discovery of the harm starts the statute running.
In some jurisdictions the action is said to have not accrued until the harm is d
iscovered;
in others, the action accrues when the malpractice occurs, but an action to redr
ess the harm is tolled until
the injured party discovers the harm.

Arthur Alan Wolk v. Walter Olson

Arthur Alan Wolk, sued Overlawyered.com for defamation, false light, and
intentional interference with an article published on that website.
The defendants move to dismiss the complaint on the
ground that the case was not brought within the statute of
limitations
The article was published on April 8, 2007,
In April 2009, the plaintiff discovered the Article and immediately contacted Mr
. Frank and
demanded that all articles relating to the plaintiff be removed
The defendants refused to
retract the Article, which remained accessible on the
website at the time the plaintiff filed his complaint.
The statute began to run from the time of
publication.
Mr. Frank published the article on April 8, 2007, with the result that the limit
ations window closed on April 8,
2008.
The judge concluded that the discovery rule could not be applied here and theref
ore Arthur Alan Wolk lost the case.

Oshiver v. Levin,
Fishbein, Sedran & Berman,

Oshiver, who had applied for a position as an associate attorney at Levin, Fishb
ein, Sedran, & Berman was instead hired
as an hourly attorney, having been informed that there were no salaried position
s available at that time.
On April 10, 1990, Oshiver was dismissed with the explanation that the firm did
not have sufficient work to sustain her
position
On May 21, 1991, Oshiver learned that shortly after her dismissal, a male attorn
ey had been hired by the firm to take over
her duties as an hourly employee.
on November 8, 1991, Oshiver filed administrative complaints with the Pennsylvan
ia Human Relations Commission
("PHRC") and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") alleging that
her dismissal was the product of gender
discrimination.

The court granted the firm's motion to dismiss Oshiver's complaint, holding that
her federal claims were time-
because the statutory limitations period had begun to run on April 10, 1990, the
day the firm dismissed Oshiver;
 on that day, the court concluded, Oshiver knew or had reason to know that an al
leged discriminatory act had occurred.