Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Invoking laches is a reference to a lack of diligence and activity in making a legal claim, or moving forward with legal enforcement of a right, in particular with regard to equity, and so is an "unreasonable delay pursuing a right or claim, in a way that prejudices the [opposing] party". [1]
Laches has a restricted scope in law for the following reasons: Its principal application was and is to claims of an equitable cast for which the legislature has provided no fixed time limitation. In the case, §507(b)'s three-year window provides for such a limitation. In addition, the Court has cautioned against invoking laches to bar legal ...
This includes "he who comes to equity must come with clean hands" (that is, the court will not assist a claimant who is himself in the wrong or acting for improper motives), laches (equitable remedies will not be granted if the claimant has delayed unduly in seeking them), "equity will not assist a volunteer" (meaning that a person cannot ...
With respect to the ejectment cause of action, Hall would have held that: "[W]here a plaintiff seeks ejectment damages, rather than restoration of a possession interest, application of the doctrine of laches to such a money damage claim is rarely if ever justified." [27] Hall also would not have applied laches to the trespass cause of action. [28]
Clean hands, sometimes called the clean hands doctrine, unclean hands doctrine, or dirty hands doctrine, [1] is an equitable defense in which the defendant argues that the plaintiff is not entitled to obtain an equitable remedy because the plaintiff is acting unethically or has acted in bad faith with respect to the subject of the complaint—that is, with "unclean hands".
This was the second time the Supreme Court had granted certiorari to the Oneida's land claim. Over a decade earlier, in Oneida Indian Nation of New York v.County of Oneida (1974), the Supreme Court had allowed the same suit to proceed by unanimously holding that there was federal subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the claim. [2]
"The Right To Be Heard In 'City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation': Equity and the Sound of Silence". Law and Inequality. 25: 227 (subscription required) Matthew L.M. Fletcher (2007). "The Supreme Court's Indian Problem" (PDF). Hastings Law Journal. 59: 579. Archived from the original (PDF) on June 1, 2012
In Lindsay Petroleum Company v Hurd, [6] it is said: “The doctrine of laches in Courts of Equity is not an arbitrary or a technical doctrine. Where it would be practically unjust to give a remedy, either because the party has, by his conduct done that which might fairly be regarded as equivalent to a waiver of it, or where, by his conduct and ...