Short answer. You have one year from the entry of the judgment. Rule 66, Section 11 requires a damages action to be filed within one year after the entry of the judgment establishing your right to the office — a separate one-year clock from the one that governs the ouster action itself.
What the law says
an action for damages in accordance with the provisions of the next preceding section unless the same be commenced within one year after the entry of the judgment establishing the petitioner's right to the office in question
Rule 66, Section 11 — Limitations. Read the full provision →
Two separate one-year deadlines under this rule
Rule 66, Section 11 actually addresses two different actions, each with its own one-year clock. The first is the action to oust someone from public office, which must be filed within one year after the cause of the ouster arose, or after the petitioner's own right to the office arose. The second, which is what applies once a quo warranto case has already been won, is the action for damages tied to that usurpation. That action must be commenced within one year after the entry of the judgment that established the petitioner's right to the office. These are not the same period, and winning the quo warranto case does not by itself preserve any time left over from the first deadline for use in the second.
When the one-year period for damages starts
The trigger for the damages deadline is specific: it runs from the entry of the judgment establishing the petitioner's right to the office, not from the date of the usurpation itself, not from when the petition was filed, and not from when the decision was rendered orally or informally announced. Entry of judgment is a distinct procedural event from the decision itself, and it is that specific date, not any earlier stage of the case, that the rule uses as the starting point. Anyone who has won a quo warranto case and intends to pursue a separate action for damages arising from the usurpation needs to track that specific date closely, since the rule gives no other starting point to work from.
Why the deadline is strict
A one-year period from entry of judgment is short, and the rule does not carve out exceptions for it the way some other deadlines allow for interruption by a motion for reconsideration. Since the action for damages is described as separate from the underlying quo warranto proceeding, it is treated as its own case with its own filing requirement, evidence of the damages actually suffered, and its own prescriptive period. A petitioner who wins the office back but delays too long in pursuing the related damages claim risks losing the right to recover for the usurpation entirely, even though the right to the office itself has already been settled in their favor.