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.All variants
| Variant | Description | Merits instance blocks | Distinct cases | Example cases (up to 3 per group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| fraudulent-concealment-tolling/deferred-to-discovery | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f-supp-3d/351/0698-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2018 — applied/procedural |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /f-supp-3d/351/0698-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2018 | 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. |
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.
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.).