(May 10, 2010): Normally there is statute of limitations that will apply to most civil lawsuits. This means that a claim must be filed in Court within a certain time after the action complained about occurred. For instance, in Texas, if you are involved in a motor vehicle accident and suffer an injury you must file a lawsuit within 2 years of the date of the accident. Failure to do so will prevent you from being able to file a lawsuit after the 2 years expires.

A common statute of limitations for a party to bring a lawsuit for breach of contract is four years from the date of the breach. However, in many states, the statute of limitations does not apply or is greatly expanded for a City or other governmental unit if the cause of action is for a public purpose, such as collecting taxes or recovering money or damages for a breach of contract for public construction. In Texas, Section 16.061 of Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section provides that the statue of limitations does not apply and does not bar many causes of actions that a city may have against an individual or a private entity.

Courts in various other states have also provided that limitations do not bar a City in certain civil actions. The cases and summaries are provided by the treatise?McQuillin The Law of Municipal Corporations? 17 McQuillin Mun. Corp. § 49:6 (3rd ed.).

In conclusion, Cities should always consult legal counsel on their ability to pursue monies owed or damages to Cities, no matter how long ago the breach or damage occurred. Concurrently, individual and entities that contract with a City should also consult their attorney in regards to limitations and what measures they can take to alleviate or protect from lawsuits for incidents that occur many years in the past.

Arizona

Statute of limitations did not run against city in action against county for taxes collected. City of Bisbee v. Cochise County, 52 Ariz. 1, 78 P.2d 982 (1938)

Colorado

Statute of limitations was inapplicable to statutory action of county to recover expense of relief to paupers. Cherrington v. Board of Com?rs of Otero County, 89 Colo. 116, 299 P. 711 (1931)

Shootman v. Department of Transp., 926 P.2d 1200 (Colo. 1996)

Board of Educ. of City of Chicago v. A, C and S, Inc., 131 Ill. 2d 428, 137 Ill. Dec. 635, 546 N.E.2d 580, 57 Ed. Law Rep. 206, Prod. Liab. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 12285, 10 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d 90 (1989) (school seeking compensation for removal of asbestos as public purpose); City of Shelbyville v. Shelbyville Restorium, Inc., 96 Ill. 2d 457, 71 Ill. Dec. 720, 451 N.E.2d 874 (1983) (street and sidewalk construction as public purpose); Brown v. Trustees of Schools, 224 Ill. 184, 79 N.E. 579 (1906); Greenwood v. Town of La Salle, 137 Ill. 225, 26 N.E. 1089 (1891); People ex rel. v. Town of Oran, 121 Ill. 650, 13 N.E. 726 (1887)

Iowa

Chicago & N.W. Ry. Co. v. City of Osage, 176 N.W.2d 788 (Iowa 1970); State ex rel. Schlagel v. Munn, 216 Iowa 1232, 250 N.W. 471 (1933)

Suit by public to oust owner of electric lighting system in operation over 10 years was not barred by limitation statute. State ex rel. Schlagel v. Munn, 216 Iowa 1232, 250 N.W. 471 (1933)

Illinois

Savoie v. Town of Bourbonnais, 339 Ill. App. 551, 90 N.E.2d 645 (2d Dist. 1950) (matters involving public rights)

Oregon

City of Pendleton v. Holman, 177 Or. 532, 164 P.2d 434, 162 A.L.R. 249 (1945)

The common-law rule is that statutes of limitations do not apply against government bodies unless they are included expressly or by necessary implication. City of Medford By and Through Medford Water Com?n v. Budge-McHugh Supply Co., 91 Or. App. 213, 754 P.2d 607, Prod. Liab. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 11831 (1988) (negligence in product liability actions)

Should you have any questions regarding these issues, don?t hesitate to contact us. For a complementary consultation, you may call Robert W. Liles or one of our other attorneys at 1 (800) 475-1906.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *