Nullum tempus occurrit regi

Last updated

Nullum tempus occurrit regi ("no time runs against the king"), also abbreviated to nullum tempus, [1] is a common law doctrine.

Contents

In republics, it is often referred to as "nullum tempus occurrit reipublicae". [2]

Meaning

The doctrine states that the crown is not subject to statutes of limitations or to the doctrine of laches. [3] This means that the crown can proceed with actions that would be barred if brought by an individual due to the passage of time. It also makes it impossible to obtain property rights over government-owned land by adverse possession, or "squatters' rights".

The doctrine is considered by some to be an application of sovereign immunity to areas of law concerning statutes of limitations. [4] While the two doctrines are often linked as concepts, and are considered by some jurisdictions to be intertwined in policy and practice, there is a debate on whether the two doctrines are actually related. [1]

Purpose

Some legal experts assert that Nullum tempus is designed to protect public interests, on the belief that members of the public should not have to be liable for an official's failure to bring timely actions. [1]

In the United States, the Supreme Court listed a separate purpose for nullum tempus, asserting, in a 1938 ruling, that since the King is always busily working for the public good, it does not have time to assert his rights, within the timeframe that is normally given to his subjects. [5]

Criticism

Some legal experts have called for the abolition of nullum tempus. [6] They argue that sovereign immunity, which they assert is the legal underpinning of nullum tempus, can lead to unjust results, and that nullum tempus is difficult to justify because policies underlying sovereign immunity bears no logical relations to those that support statutes of limitation. [6]

Some also argue that nullum tempus needs to be abolished, at least in matters relating to tax laws, in order to provide finality for matters, encourage timeliness of claims, harmonize tax laws with other administrative laws, promote administrative and judicial economy, and discourage arbitrary assessments. [7]

Use by regions

Canada

For civil cases in Canada, the statute of limitation for non-governmental entities vary by province, any can vary from 1 to 20 years, depending on the case. [8]

The crown, however, enjoys a longer statute of limitation in some cases. In Nova Scotia, the Limitations of Actions Act in 1837 puts a 60-year statute of limitations on the crown to pursue any claims on lands or rent. [9] The 60-year limitation was also mentioned in the Real Property Limitations Act. [10]

The 60-year limitation is a legacy of legislation from the United Kingdom, as mentioned below. [9]

United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, application of nullum tempus was restricted, but not ended entirely, by the Nullum Tempus Acts of 1623 and 1769, which barred Crown claims that predated 60 years. [9]

In a court ruling in Canada's Nova Scotia province that mentioned the history of nullum tempus in the United Kingdom, it was noted that the rationale for the acts was that the King at the time wished people can hold the lands which they and their ancestors had enjoyed. [9]

United States

On the federal level, nullum tempus is a legacy of British law, dating back to the nation's time as a group of British colonies. [11] It has been recognized by the Supreme Court as a valid legal doctrine since at least 1878. [12]

Many states within the United States have court opinions or laws that mention or delineate the use of nullum tempus. The frequency of such court rulings or laws, as well as its applicability or limitations, vary by state. [11]

Nullum tempus is no longer applicable in 13 states. Of those 13 states, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana and North Dakota abolished the doctrine via legislation, while Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Jersey, New York and South Carolina abolished it via a court ruling [11] [13] [14]

The applicability of nullum tempus in Tennessee is unclear, and Alaska's Supreme Court has never addressed, discussed or otherwise mentioned nullum tempus in its rulings. [11]

Further reading

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Laches (equity)</span> Unreasonable delay by a plaintiff in bringing their claim

In common law legal systems, laches is a lack of diligence and activity in making a legal claim, or moving forward with legal enforcement of a right, particularly in regard to equity. This means that it is an unreasonable delay that can be viewed as prejudicing the opposing party. When asserted in litigation, it is an equity defense, that is, a defense to a claim for an equitable remedy.

A statute of limitations, known in civil law systems as a prescriptive period, is a law passed by a legislative body to set the maximum time after an event within which legal proceedings may be initiated. In the United States, a government agency is permitted by the Congress to create under federal regulations its own statute of limitations.

Sovereign immunity, or crown immunity, is a legal doctrine whereby a sovereign or state cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution, strictly speaking in modern texts in its own courts. A similar, stronger rule as regards foreign courts is named state immunity.

In law, standing or locus standi is a condition that a party seeking a legal remedy must show they have, by demonstrating to the court, sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. A party has standing in the following situations:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act</span> United States law

The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA) is a United States law, codified at Title 28, §§ 1330, 1332, 1391(f), 1441(d), and 1602–1611 of the United States Code, that established criteria as to whether a foreign sovereign nation is immune from suit in U.S. courts—federal or state. The Act also establishes specific procedures for service of process, attachment of property and execution of judgment in proceedings against a foreign state. The FSIA provides the exclusive basis and means to bring a civil suit against a foreign sovereign in the United States. It was signed into law by United States President Gerald Ford on October 21, 1976.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nonintercourse Act</span> Family of U.S. laws related to Native American tribal rights

The Nonintercourse Act is the collective name given to six statutes passed by the Congress in 1790, 1793, 1796, 1799, 1802, and 1834 to set Amerindian boundaries of reservations. The various Acts were also intended to regulate commerce between settlers and the natives. The most notable provisions of the Act regulate the inalienability of aboriginal title in the United States, a continuing source of litigation for almost 200 years. The prohibition on purchases of Indian lands without the approval of the federal government has its origins in the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and the Confederation Congress Proclamation of 1783.

Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974), was a United States Supreme Court case that held that the sovereign immunity recognized in the Eleventh Amendment prevented a federal court from ordering a state from paying back funds that had been unconstitutionally withheld from parties to whom they had been due.

<i>Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo</i> U.S. trademark law case

Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo, 415 F.3d 44, is a case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia considered the decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) to cancel the registration of the Washington Redskins football team, based on the claim that the name was disparaging to Native Americans. The Court of Appeals did not actually reach the merits of the TTAB's decision; it sent the case back to the trial court for consideration of a procedural issue.

In the United States, qualified immunity is a legal principle that grants government officials performing discretionary (optional) functions immunity from civil suits unless the plaintiff shows that the official violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known". It is a form of sovereign immunity less strict than absolute immunity that is intended to protect officials who "make reasonable but mistaken judgments about open legal questions", extending to "all [officials] but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law". Qualified immunity applies only to government officials in civil litigation, and does not protect the government itself from suits arising from officials' actions.

BP America Production Co. v. Burton, 549 U.S. 84 (2006), was a United States Supreme Court case about whether a statute of limitations on government actions for contract claims applies to actions by a federal administrative agency to recover royalties on federal oil and gas leases. After two members recused themselves, the court ruled unanimously that it does not apply, in an opinion by Justice Samuel Alito.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sovereign immunity in the United States</span> Legal protection of federal, state and tribal governments

In United States law, the federal government as well as state and tribal governments generally enjoy sovereign immunity, also known as governmental immunity, from lawsuits. Local governments in most jurisdictions enjoy immunity from some forms of suit, particularly in tort. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act provides foreign governments, including state-owned companies, with a related form of immunity—state immunity—that shields them from lawsuits except in relation to certain actions relating to commercial activity in the United States. The principle of sovereign immunity in US law was inherited from the English common law legal maxim rex non potest peccare, meaning "the king can do no wrong." In some situations, sovereign immunity may be waived by law.

Tolling is a legal doctrine that allows for the pausing or delaying of the running of the period of time set forth by a statute of limitations, such that a lawsuit may potentially be filed even after the statute of limitations has run. Although grounds for tolling the statute of limitations vary by jurisdiction, common grounds include:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Aboriginal title in the United States</span> First country to recognize aboriginal title

The United States was the first jurisdiction to acknowledge the common law doctrine of aboriginal title. Native American tribes and nations establish aboriginal title by actual, continuous, and exclusive use and occupancy for a "long time." Individuals may also establish aboriginal title, if their ancestors held title as individuals. Unlike other jurisdictions, the content of aboriginal title is not limited to historical or traditional land uses. Aboriginal title may not be alienated, except to the federal government or with the approval of Congress. Aboriginal title is distinct from the lands Native Americans own in fee simple and occupy under federal trust.

County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York State, 470 U.S. 226 (1985), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning aboriginal title in the United States. The case, sometimes referred to as Oneida II, was "the first Indian land claim case won on the basis of the Nonintercourse Act."

<i>Cayuga Indian Nation of New York v. Pataki</i> American legal case

Cayuga Indian Nation of New York v. Pataki, 413 F.3d 266, is an important precedent in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for the litigation of aboriginal title in the United States. Applying the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling in City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York (2005), a divided panel held that the equitable doctrine of laches bars all tribal land claims sounding in ejectment or trespass, for both tribal plaintiffs and the federal government as plaintiff-intervenor.

United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196 (1882), is a 5-to-4 ruling by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Constitution's prohibition on lawsuits against the federal government did not extend to officers of the government themselves. The case involved the heir of Mary Anna Custis Lee, wife of Confederate States of America General Robert E. Lee, who sued to regain control of Arlington House and its grounds. Arlington had been seized by the United States government in 1861 and eventually converted into Arlington National Cemetery. The estate had been sold to pay outstanding taxes, but the lawsuit contested the tax sale as improper. A jury found in favor of the Lees. The Supreme Court, too, concluded that the tax sale was illegal. In stripping the federal officers of their sovereign immunity, the Supreme Court agreed that suit against them was proper.

The Administration of justice is the process by which the legal system of a government is executed. The presumed goal of such an administration is to provide justice for all those accessing the legal system. The phrase is also commonly used to describe a University degree, which can be a prerequisite for a job in law enforcement or government.

Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 572 U.S. 663 (2014), is a United States Supreme Court copyright decision in which the Court held 6-3 that the equitable defense of laches is not available to copyright defendants in claims for damages.

Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case that determined that unless they consent, states have sovereign immunity from private suits filed against them in the courts of another state. The 5–4 decision overturned precedent set in a 1979 Supreme Court case, Nevada v. Hall. This was the third time that the litigants had presented their case to the Court, as the Court had already ruled on the issue in 2003 and 2016.

Rotkiske v. Klemm, 589 U.S. ___ (2019), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the statute of limitations under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act of 1977. The Court ruled that the statute of limitations begins one year after the alleged FDCPA violation took place, not one year after the violation was discovered by the plaintiff. This ruling affirmed a decision by the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. It is noteworthy for being the first signed opinion released from the 2019 term. It is also noteworthy for resolving a circuit split regarding a major consumer protection law.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Rubinstein, Kenneth E.; Rideout, Laura; Everitt, Ed (Spring 2016). "Time Does Not Run Against the King — But What About The Prince? When Municipalities Can Assert Nullum Tempus". Under Construction. American Bar Association. 17 (4). Archived from the original on March 19, 2017. Retrieved November 4, 2019.
  2. ↑ Cushman, Robert F; G. Christian Hedemann (1995). Architect and Engineer Liability. Aspen Publishers Online. p. 351. ISBN   0-7355-0666-3.
  3. ↑ Mack, Joseph (2006-04-01). "Nullum tempus: governmental immunity to statutes of limitation, laches, and statutes of repose". Defense Counsel Journal. Retrieved 2008-08-21.
  4. ↑ Bowden, p. 408-409.
  5. ↑ Kosfky, p. 276.
  6. 1 2 Bowden, p. 409.
  7. ↑ Kosfky, p. 299.
  8. ↑ "Limitation Periods in Canada's Provinces & Territories" (PDF). Olga Gil Research Services. 2008. Archived from the original (PDF) on 4 March 2016. Retrieved 10 October 2019.
  9. 1 2 3 4 "Nova Scotia (Attorney General) v. Brill, 2010 NSCA 69". Canadian Legal information Institute. Nova Scotia Court of Appeals. 9 September 2009. Retrieved 10 October 2019.
  10. ↑ "Real Property Limitations Act". Canadian Legal information Institute. p. 5. Retrieved 10 October 2019.
  11. 1 2 3 4 "Nullum Tempus - Compendoum of Law" (PDF). US Law Network. Retrieved 7 October 2019.
  12. ↑ United States Supreme Court (1878). "98 U.S. 486 - United States v. Thompson". OpenJurist. Retrieved 10 October 2019.
  13. ↑ Berr, Kristopher (July 20, 2017). "The King's Time Is Up: Arizona Supreme Court Holds That the Statute of Repose Bars Untimely Claims by State Entities and Overrides the Doctrine of Nullum Tempus Occurrit Regi". Lexology. Law Business Research. Retrieved November 4, 2019.
  14. ↑ Wilson, Jenny (9 June 2015). "Three-Year Lobbying Effort Overturns 13th Century Law". Hartford Courant . Retrieved 10 October 2019.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.