DOCSLIB.ORG

Statute of Limitations Quick Guide (During Covid-19 Pandemic)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Statute of Limitations Quick Guide (During Covid-19 Pandemic) STATUTE OF OVERVIEW Written by USLAW NETWORK member attorneys, the Compendium takes LIMITATIONS advantage of local knowledge and experience in each of the jurisdictions in which USLAW NETWORK firms practice. QUICK GUIDE (DURING COVID- 19 PANDEMIC) (Version released: December 2020) USLAW.ORG • 800- 231-9110 Contents ALABAMA .................................................................................................................................................. 3 ARIZONA..................................................................................................................................................... 4 ARKANSAS ................................................................................................................................................. 4 CALIFORNIA .............................................................................................................................................. 5 COLORADO ................................................................................................................................................ 7 CONNECTICUT .......................................................................................................................................... 8 DELAWARE ................................................................................................................................................ 9 FLORIDA ................................................................................................................................................... 10 GEORGIA................................................................................................................................................... 11 HAWAII ..................................................................................................................................................... 11 IDAHO ........................................................................................................................................................ 12 ILLINOIS .................................................................................................................................................... 13 INDIANA ................................................................................................................................................... 14 IOWA .......................................................................................................................................................... 16 KANSAS .................................................................................................................................................... 17 KENTUCKY............................................................................................................................................... 18 LOUISIANA ............................................................................................................................................... 20 MARYLAND ............................................................................................................................................. 21 MASSACHUSETTS ................................................................................................................................... 23 MICHIGAN ................................................................................................................................................ 24 MINNESOTA ............................................................................................................................................. 26 MISSISSIPPI .............................................................................................................................................. 27 MISSOURI ................................................................................................................................................. 28 MONTANA ................................................................................................................................................ 28 NEBRASKA ............................................................................................................................................... 28 NEVADA .................................................................................................................................................... 29 NEW HAMPSHIRE ................................................................................................................................... 29 NEW JERSEY ............................................................................................................................................ 31 NEW MEXICO ........................................................................................................................................... 33 NEW YORK ............................................................................................................................................... 33 NORTH CAROLINA ................................................................................................................................. 35 NORTH DAKOTA ..................................................................................................................................... 36 OHIO .......................................................................................................................................................... 36 OKLAHOMA ............................................................................................................................................. 38 OREGON .................................................................................................................................................... 40 PENNSYLVANIA ...................................................................................................................................... 42 Page | 1 USLAW NETWORK Statutes of Limitations Quick Guide (During Covid-19 Pandemic) RHODE ISLAND ....................................................................................................................................... 44 SOUTH CAROLINA .................................................................................................................................. 45 SOUTH DAKOTA ..................................................................................................................................... 47 TENNESSEE .............................................................................................................................................. 47 TEXAS ........................................................................................................................................................ 48 UTAH ......................................................................................................................................................... 51 VIRGINIA .................................................................................................................................................. 52 WASHINGTON ......................................................................................................................................... 53 WEST VIRGINIA ...................................................................................................................................... 54 WISCONSIN .............................................................................................................................................. 57 WYOMING ................................................................................................................................................ 58 WASHINGTON, D.C. ................................................................................................................................ 58 This Compendium outline contains a brief overview of certain laws concerning various litigation and legal topics. The compendium provides a simple synopsis of current law and is not intended to explore lengthy analysis of legal issues. This compendium is provided for general information and educational purposes only. It does not solicit, establish, or continue an attorney-client relationship with any attorney or law firm identified as an author, editor, or contributor. The contents should not be construed as legal advice or opinion. While every effort has been made to be accurate, the contents should not be relied upon in any specific factual situation. These materials are not intended to provide legal advice or to cover all laws or regulations that may be applicable to a specific factual situation. If you have matters or questions to be resolved for which legal advice may be indicated, you are encouraged to contact a lawyer authorized to practice law in the state for which you are investigating and/or seeking legal advice. Page | 2 USLAW NETWORK Statutes of Limitations Quick Guide (During Covid-19 Pandemic) ALABAMA Prepared by Joseph H. Driver Tommy S. Thornton, II CARR ALLISON 100 Vestavia Parkway Birmingham, AL 35216 Tel: (205) 822-2006 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] www.carrallison.com EXTENDED STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS DURING THIS TIME OF COVID-19 Alabama has not extended applicable Statutes of Limitation during the COVID-19 pandemic. On March 13, 2020, the Alabama Supreme Court issued its initial Administrative Order, In Re: COVID-19 Pandemic Emergency Response. While that Order did extend certain time periods related to deadlines which were “set by
Load more

Recommended publications
  • In Praise of Statutes of Limitations in Sex Offense Cases James Herbie Difonzo Maurice A
    Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law Hofstra Law Faculty Scholarship 2004 In Praise of Statutes of Limitations in Sex Offense Cases James Herbie DiFonzo Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/faculty_scholarship Recommended Citation James Herbie DiFonzo, In Praise of Statutes of Limitations in Sex Offense Cases, 41 Hous. L. Rev. 1205 (2004) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/faculty_scholarship/461 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hofstra Law Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLE IN PRAISE OF STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS IN SEX OFFENSE CASES James Herbie DiFonzo* "Rapists Shouldn't Be Able to Run Out the Clock."' "'[DNA] is very, very reliable if you do two things right: if you test it right, and if you interpret the results right .... The problem is that jurors think it's absolute and infallible.'"2 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................... 1206 II. ARE STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS STILL RELEVANT IN THE AGE OF DNA? .......................................................... 1209 A. Limitations Policy Revisited ....................................... 1209 B. The Impact of DNA Technology on Limitations Policy in Sexual Offense Cases ................................... 1217 C. Indicting "JohnDoe, Unknown Male with Matching Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) Profile"........ 1226 * Professor of Law, Hofstra University School of Law. J.D., M.A., 1977, Ph.D., 1993, University of Virginia. E-mail: [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • Conflict of the Criminal Statute of Limitations with Lesser Offenses at Trial
    William & Mary Law Review Volume 37 (1995-1996) Issue 1 Article 10 October 1995 Conflict of the Criminal Statute of Limitations with Lesser Offenses at Trial Alan L. Adlestein Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr Part of the Criminal Law Commons Repository Citation Alan L. Adlestein, Conflict of the Criminal Statute of Limitations with Lesser Offenses at Trial, 37 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 199 (1995), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol37/iss1/10 Copyright c 1995 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr CONFLICT OF THE CRIMINAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WITH LESSER OFFENSES AT TRIAL ALAN L. ADLESTEIN I. INTRODUCTION ............................... 200 II. THE CRIMINAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AND LESSER OFFENSES-DEVELOPMENT OF THE CONFLICT ........ 206 A. Prelude: The Problem of JurisdictionalLabels ..... 206 B. The JurisdictionalLabel and the CriminalStatute of Limitations ................ 207 C. The JurisdictionalLabel and the Lesser Offense .... 209 D. Challenges to the Jurisdictional Label-In re Winship, Keeble v. United States, and United States v. Wild ..................... 211 E. Lesser Offenses and the Supreme Court's Capital Cases- Beck v. Alabama, Spaziano v. Florida, and Schad v. Arizona ........................... 217 1. Beck v. Alabama-LegislativePreclusion of Lesser Offenses ................................ 217 2. Spaziano v. Florida-Does the Due Process Clause Require Waivability? ....................... 222 3. Schad v. Arizona-The Single Non-Capital Option ....................... 228 F. The Conflict Illustrated in the Federal Circuits and the States ....................... 230 1. The Conflict in the Federal Circuits ........... 232 2. The Conflict in the States .................. 234 III.
    [Show full text]
  • Office of Lawyer Regulation Annual Report 2012-2013
    REGULATION OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION IN WISCONSIN ________________________________________________________ FISCAL YEAR 2012-2013 __________________________________________________________________ Report of the Lawyer Regulation System Keith L. Sellen, Director Attorney Rod Rogahn, Chairperson Office of Lawyer Regulation Board of Administrative Oversight 110 East Main Street, Suite 315, Madison, WI 53703 (608) 267-7274 www.wicourts.gov/olr ANNUAL REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2012-2013 Introduction Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 21.03(6)(n) and 21.10(2)(e), the Office of Lawyer Regulation and Board of Administrative Oversight are filing this fiscal year 2012-2013 report on the lawyer regulation system. Composition of the Lawyer Regulation System “The lawyer regulation system is established to carry out the Supreme Court’s constitutional responsibility to supervise the practice of law and protect the public from misconduct by persons practicing law in Wisconsin.” SCR Chapter 21, Preamble. The composition and organization of the lawyer regulation system is depicted in Appendix 1. The persons currently serving in these organizations are identified in Appendix 2. Following is a description of the components. Supreme Court The Supreme Court supervises the lawyer regulation system, determines attorney misconduct and medical incapacity, and imposes discipline or directs other appropriate action in proceedings filed with the Court. Office of Lawyer Regulation The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) consists of the Director, investigative and support staff, litigation counsel, and retained counsel. The office has the following duties. • To receive and to respond to inquiries and grievances relating to attorneys. • To investigate allegations of attorney misconduct or medical incapacity. • To divert matters into an alternative to discipline program.
    [Show full text]
  • 'The Laws Are Yours" Is the Latest in a Series of Projects Undertaken by the Lawyers' Wives of Wisconsin to Further Public
    Appendix 29 1 'The Laws Are Yours" is the latest in a series of projects undertaken by the Lawyers' Wives of Wisconsin to further public understanding of the law and of the legal profession . Lawyers' Wives of Wisconsin has approximately 1400 members in 24 charter county groups throughout the state. Among their varied activities are Law Day observances, welcoming of newly naturalized citizens and the recently completed law-related education program, "You and the Law." A scholarship for a law student is presented annually to each Law School in Wisconsin. We hope that you, the reader, will have a better understanding of the Wisconsin legal system after reading "The Laws Are Yours." We have not attempted to answer specific questions about the law since facts, situations, circumstances and persons differ and the application of the law to such cases may also vary. For specific answers to legal advice it is suggested that you consult a lawyer in your community. We would appreciate your comments: Please send them to: Lawyers' Wives of Wisconsin c/o 4001 Haven Avenue Racine, Wisconsin, 53405 1979 Appendix 29 2 INTRODUCTION We live in a land of freedom, free to do as we wish and to go where we please, as long as we do not infringe on the rights of others. It has been said that one's right to swing his fist ends at the point where the other fellow's nose begins. Law began when man discovered he could not live alone - that there had to be rules in order for people to live together.
    [Show full text]
  • STATE of OKLAHOMA STATUTE of LIMITATIONS (During COVID-19 Pandemic)
    STATE OF OKLAHOMA STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (during COVID-19 pandemic) Prepared by John C. Lennon PIERCE COUCH HENDRICKSON BAYSINGER & GREEN, LLP 1109 N. Francis Ave Oklahoma City, OK 73106 Tel: (405) 235-1611 Email: [email protected] www.piercecouch.com 2020 EXTENDED CIVIL STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS DURING THIS TIME OF COVID-19 From March 16, 2020 through May 15, 2020, there was a tolling period in Oklahoma affecting the civil statutes of limitations. However, it is not entirely clear whether this tolling period affected only instances in which the statute of limitations would have expired during those 60 days, or if there is no such limitation – meaning the statute of limitations in all situations simply paused. The following information explains Oklahoma’s tolling period. On March 15, 2020, Governor Stitt issued Executive Order 2020-07 declaring an emergency in all 77 Oklahoma Counties because of the pandemic. This executive order did not mention the statute of limitations, nor any other aspect of civil procedure or the judiciary more generally. Nonetheless, the next day, referencing the Governor’s order, the Oklahoma Supreme Court and the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals jointly issued their First Emergency Joint Order Regarding the Covid-19 State of Disaster, which suspended deadlines and limitations. Subsequently, the two courts issued two additional Emergency Joint Orders Regarding the Covid-19 State of Disaster. The third order, issued April 29, 2020, is the last word as of the date of this memorandum regarding the statute of limitations in connection with the pandemic. See Third Emergency Joint Order Reg. COVID-19, 462 P.3d 703, 2020 OK 23.
    [Show full text]
  • Statutes of Limitation for Prosecution of Offenses Against Children (Last Updated August 2012)
    Statutes of Limitation for Prosecution of Offenses Against Children (last updated August 2012) This compilation includes statutes that establish, toll, extend, or eliminate time limitations for charging criminal offenses relating specifically to child victims. Every statute included either specifically mentions child victims or makes reference to a statute that does. This is not a statutory compilation of all criminal statute of limitations laws. General statutes of limitations that apply to all crimes without specific reference to the age of the victim or children as a class of victims are omitted. Please feel free to contact NDAA for help in ensuring compliance with all of your jurisdiction’s applicable statutes of limitation. Table of Contents: TABLE OF CONTENTS:............................................................................................................................................... 1 ALABAMA .................................................................................................................................................................... 4 ALA. CODE § 15-3-5 (2012). Offenses having no limitation.....................................................................................4 ALASKA ........................................................................................................................................................................ 4 ALASKA STAT. § 12.10.010 (2012). General time limitations...................................................................................4
    [Show full text]
  • Tips for Federal Criminal Defense Counsel on Statute of Limitations Challenges
    Professional Perspective Tips for Federal Criminal Defense Counsel on Statute of Limitations Challenges Margot Moss, Markus/Moss, and Carolyn H. Kendall, Post & Schell Read Professional Perspectives | Become a Contributor Reproduced with permission. Published February 2021. Copyright © 2021 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. 800.372.1033. For further use, please contact [email protected] Tips for Federal Criminal Defense Counsel on Statute of Limitations Challenges Contributed by Margot Moss, Markus/Moss, and Carolyn H. Kendall, Post & Schell As courts navigate criminal proceedings and trials the during Covid-19 pandemic, federal criminal practitioners must ensure that solutions offered by prosecutors and courts to mitigate the pandemic's public health risks do not infringe on criminal defendants’ rights. Recognizing that the current environment presents novel issues, the Women's White Collar Defense Association (WWCDA) and its members have engaged in activities to help guide the legal community and its clients through this unique situation. In this article, WWCDA member Carolyn Kendall of Post & Schell interviewed fellow member Margot Moss of Markus/Moss about her insights and recommendations for federal white-collar practitioners about statute of limitations concerns during the pandemic. Kendall: Because of the Covid-19 pandemic, in many federal districts, grand juries have been temporarily suspended so that we are not seeing as many new cases indicted. However, the statute of limitations for continuing investigations has not been interrupted and continues to run. What happens if time is about to run out on an investigation? Moss: In an effort to extend the statute of limitations, the government has been filing informations against individuals, without their consent, and then moving to dismiss the improper charging documents without prejudice.
    [Show full text]
  • Bridging the Distance: Implementing Videoconferencing in Wisconsin Manual
    Bridging the Distance: Implementing Videoconferencing in Wisconsin Revised: August 2017 Prepared by: Wisconsin Supreme Court Planning and Policy Advisory Committee Videoconferencing Subcommittee Planning and Policy Advisory Committee Chief Justice Patience Drake Roggensack, Chair 16 East State Capitol P.O. Box 1688 Madison, WI 53701 This page is intentionally left blank. 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 PPAC Videoconferencing Subcommittee Members 2017 .......................................................................... 4 Section I. What is Videoconferencing? .................................................................................................... 5 Potential Benefits ................................................................................................................................ 5 Implementation Considerations .......................................................................................................... 5 Non-Courtroom Uses of Videoconferencing ...................................................................................... 5 Section II. Planning for Successfully Implementing Videoconferencing ............................................... 7 Implementation Considerations .......................................................................................................... 7 Videoconferencing and Electronic Filing ..........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Potential Impact of Untrustworthy Artificial Intelligence in Criminal Justice Risk Assessment Instruments
    Washington and Lee Law Review Volume 78 Issue 2 Article 4 Spring 2021 Technological Tethereds: Potential Impact of Untrustworthy Artificial Intelligence in Criminal Justice Risk Assessment Instruments Sonia M. Gipson Rankin University of New Mexico School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminal Procedure Commons, Law and Race Commons, and the Science and Technology Law Commons Recommended Citation Sonia M. Gipson Rankin, Technological Tethereds: Potential Impact of Untrustworthy Artificial Intelligence in Criminal Justice Risk Assessment Instruments, 78 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 647 (2021), https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr/vol78/iss2/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington and Lee Law Review at Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington and Lee Law Review by an authorized editor of Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Technological Tethereds: Potential Impact of Untrustworthy Artificial Intelligence in Criminal Justice Risk Assessment Instruments Sonia M. Gipson Rankin* Abstract Issues of racial inequality and violence are front and center today, as are issues surrounding artificial intelligence (“AI”). This Article, written by a law professor who is also a computer scientist, takes a deep dive into understanding how and why hacked and rogue AI creates unlawful and unfair outcomes, particularly for persons of color. Black Americans are disproportionally featured in criminal justice, and their stories are obfuscated. The seemingly endless back-to-back murders of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, and heartbreakingly countless others have finally shaken the United States from its slumbering journey towards intentional criminal justice reform.
    [Show full text]
  • United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division
    Case: 1:16-cv-05112 Document #: 33 Filed: 02/22/17 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:<pageID> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION LENORA BONDS, individually ) and as Independent Administrator ) of the Estate of TERRANCE HARRIS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case No. 16 C 5112 v. ) ) Judge Joan B. Gottschall ) CITY OF CHICAGO, a municipal ) Corporation, and UNKNOWN ) OFFICERS, ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Lenora Bonds filed a motion to reconsider pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), asking the court to vacate or reconsider its January 11, 2017 order granting Defendant the City of Chicago’s Motion to Dismiss Bonds’ complaint [Dkt. 27]. For the reasons set forth below, Bonds’ motion to reconsider is granted, the prior order [Dkt. 26] is vacated, and the court again grants Defendant’s motion to dismiss, although on different grounds than those originally articulated by the court in its prior order. Bonds is granted leave to file an amended complaint in accordance with the terms of this ruling. I. BACKGROUND Bonds’ son, Terrance Harris (“Terrance”), was killed by Chicago police officers on October 23, 2013. According to the allegations of Bonds’ federal court complaint [Dkt. 1], Bonds called the police to her home seeking assistance with Terrance, who had been diagnosed with a mental health issue. Bonds further alleges that Terrance was alone and unarmed when police entered their shared home, but that within a short period of time, Terrance had been shot Case: 1:16-cv-05112 Document #: 33 Filed: 02/22/17 Page 2 of 16 PageID #:<pageID> 28 times through a wall.
    [Show full text]
  • Simplifying the Organization of the Courts of the State Roy P
    Marquette Law Review Volume 9 Article 4 Issue 1 December 1924 Simplifying the Organization of the Courts of the State Roy P. Wilcox Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr Part of the Law Commons Repository Citation Roy P. Wilcox, Simplifying the Organization of the Courts of the State, 9 Marq. L. Rev. 25 (1924). Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol9/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Marquette Law Review by an authorized administrator of Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SIMPLIFYING THE ORGANIZATION OF THE COURTS OF THE STATE* By Roy P. WILCOX T HE reform of institutions consists, usually, in adapting them to changed conditions. This is largely true in speaking of reform or change in the organization of the courts of Wisconsin. Simplicity of form is the prime requisite. Numerous courts with varying, conflicting, or perhaps, concurrent jurisdiction do not make for high efficiency in ad- ministering justice. Judicial effort is wasted. Economy of cost is impossible, so that we may say quite confidently that a multiplicity of courts means failure of efficiency and extravagance in cost. While justice is not a matter of purchase, nor is it, in any sense, a business, there is no good reason why business principles should not be applied to the organization of courts, as well as-to the organization of business. The business man has a vision or plan in mind.
    [Show full text]
  • Maine Statute of Limitations
    MRS Title 14, Chapter 205. LIMITATION OF ACTIONS CHAPTER 205 LIMITATION OF ACTIONS SUBCHAPTER 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS §751. Twenty years Except as provided in Title 11, sections 2-725 and 3-1118, subsection (1), personal actions on contracts or liabilities under seal, promissory notes signed in the presence of an attesting witness, or on the bills, notes or other evidences of debt issued by a bank must be commenced within 20 years after the cause of action accrues. [PL 2017, c. 251, §1 (AMD).] SECTION HISTORY PL 1965, c. 306, §30 (AMD). PL 2017, c. 251, §1 (AMD). §752. Six years All civil actions shall be commenced within 6 years after the cause of action accrues and not afterwards, except actions on a judgment or decree of any court of record of the United States, or of any state, or of a justice of the peace in this State, and except as otherwise specially provided. §752-A. Design professionals All civil actions for malpractice or professional negligence against architects or engineers duly licensed or registered under Title 32 shall be commenced within 4 years after such malpractice or negligence is discovered, but in no event shall any such action be commenced more than 10 years after the substantial completion of the construction contract or the substantial completion of the services provided, if a construction contract is not involved. The limitation periods provided by this section shall not apply if the parties have entered into a valid contract which by its terms provides for limitation periods other than those set forth in this section.
    [Show full text]