to dismiss if these defenses are likely to dispose of the entire case. The presentation of affirmative defenses by motion will depend upon a conclusion that there is no prejudice to the opposing party. While a split of authority can be identified in the trial courts, after the amendment to the federal rules of civil procedure in 1966, most allow an affirmative defense to be raised either in a motion to dismiss or in a motion for summary judgment. An example can be found in a case in which a defendant failed to raise the statute of limitations in the answer, but the court allowed the defense to be raised in a memorandum in support of a motion for summary judgment. Quigley v. Hawthorne Lumber Co., 264 F.Supp. 214 (S.D.N.Y.1967). See also Wade v. Lynn, 181 F.Supp. 361 (N.D.Ohio 1960) (<HOLDING>). Other state jurisdictions permit affirmative
holding that the statute of limitations is nonjurisdictional and defendant expressly waived it observing in dicta that a statute of limitations defense should be raised no later than the trial holding that defendant did not waive its statute of limitations defense by failing to cite the specific statute in its answer holding that defendant had waived any defense of improper venue when he made the argument only after filing a motion for summary judgment holding that arguments not raised in opposition to a motion for summary judgment are waived holding defense of statute of limitations not waived when asserted in a motion for summary judgment rather than in the answer