Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
11 Delaware opinions name it 1 courts 2014–2024 9 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Delaware courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Portnoy v. Cryo-Cell International, Inc.green2 sentences2023Unclean Hands Defendant argues that Plaintiffs cannot enforce these agreements because they come to the court with unclean hands.262 “The doctrine of ‘unclean hands’ provides that a litigant who engages in reprehensible conduct in relation to the matter in controversy . . . forfeits his right to have the court hear his claim, regardless of its merit.” Portnoy v. Cryo-Cell Int’l, Inc., 940 A.2d 43, 80-81 (Del. 2023“The doctrine of unclean hands provides that a litigant who engages in reprehensible conduct in relation to the matter in controversy forfeits his right to have the court hear his claim, regardless of its merit.” Portnoy v. Cryo-Cell Int’l, Inc., 940 A.2d 43, 81 (Del. | 5 | 9 |
Nakahara v. NS 1991 American Trustgreen1 sentence2024Tr., 739 A.2d 770, 791-92 (Del. | 1 | 1 |
Stroud v. Milliken Entersprises, Inc.green1 sentence2021See Defs.’ Post-Trial Br. at 37; see also Stroud v. Milliken Enters., Inc., 552 A.2d 476 , 479–80 (Del. 1989) (listing ripeness as among the four elements required for a Court to exercise its statutory authority to hear a claim seeking a declaratory judgment). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Delaware. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In re Rural/Metro Corporation Stockholders Litigation
green
1 sentence2023Ch. 2008) (cleaned up). “[F]or the unclean hands doctrine to 63 apply, the inequitable conduct must have an ‘immediate and necessary’ relation to the claims under which relief is sought.” In re Rural/Metro Corp. S’holders Litig., 102 A.3d 205 , 237–38 (Del. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.