context: . The parties agree that statutes of limitations are classified as procedural rather than substantive.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 278 F.Supp.2d 945, 953
citation_a.parenthetical: observing that in breach of contract action statutes of limitations are treated as procedural
citation_a.sentence: See Horvath v. Davidson, 148 Ind.App. 203, 209, 264 N.E.2d 328, 332 (1970) (“Without exception the statute of limitations has been considered procedural in Indiana.''); see also Bailey v. Skipperliner Indus., Inc., 278 F.Supp.2d 945, 953 (N.D.Ind.2003) (observing that in breach of contract action statutes of limitations are treated as procedural).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 148 Ind.App. 203, 209
citation_b.parenthetical: "Without exception the statute of limitations has been considered procedural in Indiana.''
citation_b.sentence: See Horvath v. Davidson, 148 Ind.App. 203, 209, 264 N.E.2d 328, 332 (1970) (“Without exception the statute of limitations has been considered procedural in Indiana.''); see also Bailey v. Skipperliner Indus., Inc., 278 F.Supp.2d 945, 953 (N.D.Ind.2003) (observing that in breach of contract action statutes of limitations are treated as procedural).