united-states statute-of-limitations
Statute of limitations if law changes
<p>Let's say the statute of limitations on wrongful death is 3 years. 5 years pass. Then, the statute of limitations is completely removed.</p>
<p>Can the lawsuit be filed now? Does the statute permanently invalidate the case the first time or does it depend on current law?</p>

<p><a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/539/607/" rel="noreferrer">Stogner v. California</a>, a criminal case, held that &quot;A law enacted after expiration of a previously applicable limitations period violates the Ex Post Facto Clause when it is applied to revive a previously time-barred prosecution&quot;. In 1798, in <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/3/386/" rel="noreferrer">Calder v. Bull</a>, SCOTUS long ago decided that the Ex Post Facto Clause does not apply to civil cases. In that case, Calder had been entitled to property under a will, and the Connecticut legislature changed the law. The Supreme Court held that the legislative act was not an Ex Post Facto law. Chase's reasoning, which relies on the distinction between ex post facto law and retrospective law, is this:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In my opinion, the true distinction is between ex post facto laws and
retrospective laws. Every ex post facto law must necessarily be
retrospective, but every retrospective law is not an ex post facto
law. The former only are prohibited. Every law that takes away or
impairs rights vested agreeably to existing laws is retrospective, and
is generally unjust and may be oppressive, and it is a good general
rule that a law should have no retrospect; but there are cases in
which laws may justly, and for the benefit of the community and also
of individuals, relate to a time antecedent to their commencement, as
statutes of oblivion or of pardon. They are certainly retrospective,
and literally both concerning and after the facts committed. But I do
not consider any law ex post facto within the prohibition that
mollifies the rigor of the criminal law, but only those that create or
aggravate the crime or increase the punishment or change the rules of
evidence for the purpose of conviction. Every law that is to have an
operation before the making thereof, as to commence at an antecedent
time or to save time from the statute of limitations or to excuse acts
which were unlawful, and before committed, and the like, is
retrospective. But such laws may be proper or necessary, as the case
may be. There is a great and apparent difference between making an
unlawful act lawful and the making an innocent action criminal and
punishing it as a crime. The expressions &quot;ex post facto laws&quot; are
technical; they had been in use long before the Revolution, and had
acquired an appropriate meaning, by legislators, lawyers, and authors.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So, yes it can.</p>
