A statute of limitations sets the window within which a lawsuit must be filed. Once the clock starts, a plaintiff has a fixed period to bring the claim; file after it runs and the defendant can move to dismiss the claim as time-barred, regardless of its merits. The length of the period depends on the type of claim and the jurisdiction, and the policy behind it is to promote timely suits, preserve evidence while it is fresh, and give potential defendants repose from stale claims.

The hard question is usually when the clock starts. Many claims run from when the harm occurred, but the discovery rule can delay the start until the plaintiff knew or reasonably should have known of the injury and its cause. The clock can also be paused, or tolled, in defined circumstances such as a defendant's concealment or a plaintiff's incapacity. Related doctrines like the statute of repose can impose an outer deadline that cuts off claims even before discovery.

Because a limitations defense can end a case without ever reaching the merits, it is a structural fact rather than a soft probability. Juricratic treats a hard filing deadline as exactly that: a fixed constraint that bounds the game rather than a dial to be swept. A meritorious claim filed one day late and a weak claim filed on time can have very different values, and that asymmetry belongs in any honest assessment.

The first strategic question in almost any matter is whether the claim is timely, because a limitations problem can moot every other analysis. Defense counsel probe the accrual date and look for a clean time bar to raise early; plaintiff's counsel calendar deadlines conservatively and preserve tolling arguments. Because the consequence of missing the window is total, this is one place where certainty about the rule matters more than any strategic modeling of odds.