Del. C. » Title 10 — Limitation of Actions · CHAPTER 81. Personal Actions · Courts and Judicial Procedure
Delaware Code

10 Del. C. § 8116 (2026)

Savings for infants or persons under disability

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section DE-DELCdelcode.delaware.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

If a person entitled to any action comprehended within §§ 8101-8115 of this title, shall have been, at the time of the accruing of the cause of such action, under disability of infancy or incompetency of mind, this chapter shall not be a bar to such action during the continuance of such disability, nor until the expiration of 3 years from the removal thereof.

Code 1852, §  2750;  Code 1915, §  4679;  Code 1935, §  5137;  10 Del. C. 1953, §  8115; 
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1964–2024 · leading case: Tilden v. Anstreicher, Md, 367 A.2d 632 (Del. 1976).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Tilden v. Anstreicher, Md, 367 A.2d 632 (Del. 1976). · cites it 3× “§ 8106), 1 with its appendant tolling provision for infants and incompetents (10 Del.C. § 8116), 2 rather than that for *634 personal injuries (10 Del.”
United Indus. Corp. v. Nuclear Corp. of Am., 237 F. Supp. 971 (D. Del. 1964). · cites it 2× “1955), it was held that 10 Del.C. § 8116, 10 which tolls the statute of limitations when a defendant is absent from the state, had no application to a nonresident defendant which had been sued for violation of the Robinson Patman Act, 15 U.”
D'ANGELO v. Petroleos Mexicanos, 398 F. Supp. 72 (D. Del. 1975). “Hurwitch held that 10 Del.C. § 8116 (1953) (the equivalent of the present 10 Del.”
Viars v. Surbaugh, 335 A.2d 285 (Del. Super. Ct. 1975). “# * * ‡ * * Although the limitations period expired in October, 1973, plaintiff argues that 10 Del.C. §§ 8116 and 8117 apply and that she should be allowed to file another suit.”
Wilkes v. H. M. Wrangell & Co., 293 F. Supp. 522 (D. Del. 1968). “The Delaware tolling statute (10 Del. C. § 8116) reads: “If at the time when a cause of action accrues against any person, he is out of the State, the action may be commenced, within the time limited therefor in this chapter, after such person comes into the State in such manner…”
Vaughn v. Deitz, 430 S.W.2d 487 (Tex. 1968). · cites it 2× “2d 591 (1959) was faced with a tolling statute, 10 Del.C. § 8116, which applied when the person "* * * is out of the State.”
John J. Molitor, Inc. v. Feinberg, 258 A.2d 295 (Del. Super. Ct. 1969). “The plaintiff claims that the three year statute does not bar this cause of action because of the tolling provisions found in 10 Del.C. § 8116. That section reads as follows: “Defendant’s absence from State If at the time when a cause of action accrues against any person, he is…”
Robert C. Cecil v. Ryan C. Cecil, as Successor Tr. of the Cecil Residence Trust U/T/A dated July 3, 2018 (Del. Ch. 2024). “Respondent counters that the statute of limitations was tolled pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 8116, which states: If a person entitled to any action comprehended within §§ 8101-8115 of this title, shall have been, at the time of the accruing of the cause of such action, under…”
Speakman v. Williams (D. Del. 2019). “34, 41) based on the application of statute of limitations,10 Del. C. § 8116, be GRANTED with prejudice.”
Speakman v. Williams (D. Del. 2019). “! The Report mistakenly cites to 10 Del C. § 8116 in its conclusion, but correctly cites to 10 Del C.”
Speakman v. Williams (D. Del. 2020). “For the reasons set forth in this opinion, the objections of Plaintiffs and Patrick are each SUSTAINED-in-PART and OVERRULED-in-PART, the Report is ADOPTED as MODIFIED below as to Patrick, and ! The Report mistakenly cites to 10 Del C. § 8116 in its conclusion, but correctly…”
IMO: The Est. of Lawrence E. Mergenthaler (Del. Ch. 2024). “Devon responds that Section 8106 was tolled by 10 Del. C. § 8116 because Lawrence was suffering from incompetency of mind, so the limitations period did not begin to run until Lawrence’s death, and that in any event Cheryl suffered no prejudice from the delay between the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.