DEFENSE · 15usc1:statute-of-limitations
Accrues when a defendant commits an overt act that injures the plaintiff's business (Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321, 338 (1971)), subject to continuing-violation and fraudulent-concealment doctrines; criminal conspiracies run from the last overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy (United States v. Kissel; United States v. Kemp & Assocs.).
Exact element source
Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegalSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title15.jsonl#title15_sec1; Unicode character offsets [247:360] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9c248965c2c712de1e3f3d52a17be4c90dfdcac5d3f9fea0b7220b164e2c2973.Routes and case patterns
| Route | Definition | Merits instance blocks | Distinct merits cases | Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| accrual provisional; provisional (1 case) | When the limitations period starts to run, including overt acts of a continuing conspiracy. | 1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0 | 1 | United States v. Kemp & Assocs., Inc. — 907 F.3d 1264 (2018) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2018 — not · pleaded (15usc1: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted |
| tolling provisional; provisional (1 case) | Whether the limitations period is tolled. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | Used only in non-merits blocks (1). Excluded context examples:In re Interest Rate Swaps Antitrust Litig. — 351 F. Supp. 3d 698 (2018) · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2018 — not reached · basis not recorded (15usc1: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/procedural · not counted |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| In re Interest Rate Swaps Antitrust Litig. — 351 F. Supp. 3d 698 (2018) · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2018 — not reached (15usc1: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Statute of limitations (4-year civil under 15 U.S.C. § 15b; 5-year criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 3282) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / procedural count: conduct before June 14, 2014; subject: count=conduct before June 14, 2014 Court calls the limitations argument "substantial" but declines to rule; concealment and diligence are fact-intensive. | fraudulent-concealment-tolling/deferred-to-discovery | Defendants separately move to dismiss as time-barred trueEX's claims as to conduct before June 14, 2014.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_351.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/351/0698-01; Unicode character offsets [28356:28460] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3fc0ce3b5b594533bf7983e3ac6f93e376c4d197c6a565e4382d2c04e6842b9a.The Court therefore denies the motion to dismiss this portion of trueEX's claims as time-barred, without prejudice to defendants' right to renew such a motion after discovery closes.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_351.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/351/0698-01; Unicode character offsets [29391:29573] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3fc0ce3b5b594533bf7983e3ac6f93e376c4d197c6a565e4382d2c04e6842b9a. |
| United States v. Kemp & Assocs., Inc. — 907 F.3d 1264 (2018) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2018 — not · pleaded (15usc1: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Statute of limitations (4-year civil under 15 U.S.C. § 15b; 5-year criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 3282) | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; party: Kemp & Associates, Inc. (heir location service) and its Vice President/COO Daniel Mannix (indicted defendants, appellees); United States (prosecution; the claimant); theory: single-count indictment: agreement with a competing heir location service to allocate heirs (customers) and share the contingency fees collected from allocated heirs; subject: party=Kemp & Associates, Inc. (heir location service) and its Vice President/COO Daniel Mannix (indicted defendants, appellees); United States (prosecution; the claimant); theory=single-count indictment: agreement with a competing heir location service to allocate heirs (customers) and share the contingency fees collected from allocated heirs Polarity is relative to the DEFENSE: the 2008 end of the "formal" agreement supports the time bar; fee-sharing payments inside the window cut against it. Following Evans (bid rigging: conspiracy continues while payments on the rigged contract are received), distributing fees on allocated estates after August 17, 2011 is an overt act in furtherance. | allocation agreement said to have ended years earlier; fee-sharing payments on allocated estates continued into the five-year window | A Sherman Act conspiracy, such as the one alleged here, remains actionable "until its purpose has been achieved or abandoned, and the statute of limitations does not run so long as the co-conspirators engage in overt acts designed to accomplish its objectives."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_907.jsonl#/f3d/907/1264-01; Unicode character offsets [7770:8031] (end exclusive); SHA-256 90b1eba2924d8097713c34ef541c9dd5a86baf811954761d9ca9f6e93944276e.Based on an email from Mannix to other Kemp employees, Defendants claim that any "formal" agreement between the alleged co-conspirators ended sometime before July 30, 2008.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_907.jsonl#/f3d/907/1264-01; Unicode character offsets [4504:4676] (end exclusive); SHA-256 90b1eba2924d8097713c34ef541c9dd5a86baf811954761d9ca9f6e93944276e.Furthermore, the Indictment alleges on its face that as part of the unlawful agreement the companies agreed "that the co-conspirator company to which heirs were allocated would pay to the other co-conspirator company a portion of the contingency fees ultimately collected from those allocated heirs."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_907.jsonl#/f3d/907/1264-01; Unicode character offsets [13603:13903] (end exclusive); SHA-256 90b1eba2924d8097713c34ef541c9dd5a86baf811954761d9ca9f6e93944276e.Defendants did acknowledge, however, that "for some of the estates subject to the [agreement], certain administration work continued into the five-year period prior to the Indictment, including the recovery of money for heirs, and the payment of the firms themselves."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_907.jsonl#/f3d/907/1264-01; Unicode character offsets [5684:5952] (end exclusive); SHA-256 90b1eba2924d8097713c34ef541c9dd5a86baf811954761d9ca9f6e93944276e.Accordingly, the August 17, 2016, indictment was not barred by the statute of limitations.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_907.jsonl#/f3d/907/1264-01; Unicode character offsets [14544:14634] (end exclusive); SHA-256 90b1eba2924d8097713c34ef541c9dd5a86baf811954761d9ca9f6e93944276e. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
This language has been interpreted in this Circuit to mean that a plaintiff alleging antitrust claims must establish antitrust standing in addition to constitutional standing under Article III.
Sonterra Capital Master Fund v. Barclays Bank Plc — 366 F. Supp. 3d 516 · United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois · 2018 (15usc1: author: unavailable · not independently reviewed)
This language has been interpreted in this Circuit to mean that a plaintiff alleging antitrust claims must establish antitrust standing in addition to constitutional standing under Article III.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_366.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/366/0516-01; Unicode character offsets [21172:21365] (end exclusive); SHA-256 21ba5d381b857bedf61b49ebebe3105ca6c58f886ee116633ba2f2342bd8f22f.Accrues when a defendant commits an overt act that injures the plaintiff's business (Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321, 338 (1971)), subject to continuing-violation and fraudulent-concealment doctrines; criminal conspiracies run from the last overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy (United States v. Kissel; United States v. Kemp & Assocs.).