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.
68 New Jersey opinions name it 4 courts 1942–2026 23 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Jersey 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 |
|---|---|---|
Knorr v. Smealgreen2 sentences2024Moreover, "[t]he doctrine of laches 'is invoked to deny a party enforcement of a known right when the party engages in an inexcusable and unexplained delay in exercising that right to the prejudice of the other party.'" U.S. v. Scurry, 193 N.J. 492, 503 (2008) (citing Knorr v. Smeal, 178 N.J. 169, 180-81 (2003)). 2024Defendant explains plaintiffs possessed knowledge of the Easement prior to conveying title for the Bristol Lane Property to him in 1988, and their failure to disclose the Easement, appropriately record it in the Ocean A-2526-22 9 County Clerk's Office, and failure to act on the Easement in any manner in over thirty years all caused him "extreme detriment." The doctrine of laches "is invoked to deny a party enforcement of a known right when the party engages in an inexcusable and unexplainable delay in exercising that right to the prejudice of the other party." Knorr v. Smeal, 178 N.J. 169, 180 | 11 | 11 |
Fox v. Millmangreen2 sentences2022In rejecting defendants' claim that plaintiff's foreclosure action should be barred by the doctrine of laches, the trial court noted that "laches is rarely applied where a cause of action is governed by a statute of limitations." Quoting Fox, 210 N.J. at 422-23 , the court stated that applying laches in contravention of a statute of limitations "would replace the regular and predictable time limits fixed by our Legislature through the statutes of limitations with a system in which no lawyer or litigant could be confident of the time that would govern the initiation of litigation." Consequently 2022In rejecting defendants' claim that plaintiff's foreclosure action should be barred by the doctrine of laches, the trial court noted that "laches is rarely applied where a cause of action is governed by a statute of limitations." Quoting Fox, 210 N.J. at 422-23 , the court stated that applying laches in contravention of a statute of limitations "would replace the regular and predictable time limits fixed by our Legislature through the statutes of limitations with a system in which no lawyer or litigant could be confident of the time that would govern the initiation of litigation." Consequently | 10 | 13 |
Lavin v. Hackensack Bd. of Ed.green2 sentences2020Where, as here, we find no analogous statute of limitations for a claim to correct admitted and undisputed errors in a deed, defendants' timeliness claim should have been based on the doctrine of laches. 15 See id. at 151 (explaining laches is "an equitable defense that may be interposed in the absence of the statute of limitations"). 2020The doctrine of laches is "invoked to deny a party enforcement of a known right when the party engages in an inexcusable and unexplained delay in exercising that right to the prejudice of the other party." Knorr v. Smeal, 178 N.J. 169, 180-81 (2003). "[L]aches is not governed by fixed time limits but instead relies on analysis of time constraints that 'are characteristically flexible.'" Fox, 210 N.J. at 418 (citation omitted) (quoting Lavin v. Bd. of Educ., 90 N.J. 145, 151 (1982)). | 7 | 13 |
United States v. Scurrygreen2 sentences2024Moreover, "[t]he doctrine of laches 'is invoked to deny a party enforcement of a known right when the party engages in an inexcusable and unexplained delay in exercising that right to the prejudice of the other party.'" U.S. v. Scurry, 193 N.J. 492, 503 (2008) (citing Knorr v. Smeal, 178 N.J. 169, 180-81 (2003)). 2024See United States v. Scurry, 193 N.J. 492, 503-04 (2008) (holding "the application of the doctrine of laches . . . constituted an abuse of discretion . . . ."). | 6 | 6 |
County of Morris v. Fauvergreen2 sentences2019The doctrine of laches "is an equitable doctrine, operating as an affirmative defense that precludes relief when there is an 'unexplainable and inexcusable delay' in exercising a right, which results in prejudice to another party." Fox v. Millman, 210 N.J. 401, 417 (2012) (quoting County of Morris v. Fauver, 153 N.J. 80, 105 (1998)). 2018Next, defendant argues summary judgment was improper because the foreclosure action should have been dismissed based on the doctrine of laches. 3 The doctrine of laches operates as an "affirmative defense that precludes relief when there is an 'unexplainable and inexcusable delay' in exercising a right, which results in prejudice to another party." Fox v. Millman, 210 N.J. 401, 417 (2012) (quoting Cnty. of Morris v. Fauver, 153 N.J. 80, 105 (1998)). | 4 | 5 |
Mancini v. Township of Teaneckgreen2 sentences2021These findings are supported by substantial credible evidence in the record III. "[T]o maintain a laches defense against a plaintiff's delayed claim, a defendant must assert the defense in a diligent fashion." Mancini v. Twp. of Teaneck, 179 N.J. 425, 433 (2004). 2009In Mancini v. Township of Teaneck, 179 N.J. 425, 432 , 846 A. 2d 596 (2004), the Court noted that it "typically" considers laches "in the absence of the statute of limitations." However, Mancini held that a laches defense is available in the context of those workplace sexual harassment cases under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -49, in which the doctrine of continuing violation works to extend the normal two-year statute of limitations. | 3 | 5 |
In Re Kieturgreen2 sentences2020She cited to In re Kietur, 332 N.J. 2019"That doctrine is invoked to deny a party enforcement of a known right when the party engages in an inexcusable and unexplained delay in exercising that right to the prejudice of the other party." Knorr v. Smeal, 178 N.J. 169, 180-81 (2003) (citing In re Kietur, 332 N.J. | 3 | 3 |
Hyland v. Simmonsgreen2 sentences2020See Fox v. Millman, 210 N.J. 401, 420 (2012) ("if the subject matter in controversy in a Court of Chancery is of an equitable nature, not cognizable in a court of law, statutes of limitations although not ignored have no obligatory application, but the court will instead apply the doctrine of laches." (quoting Hyland v. Simmons, 152 N.J. 2020See Fox v. Millman, 210 N.J. 401, 420 (2012) ("if the subject matter in controversy in a Court of Chancery is of an equitable nature, not cognizable in a court of law, statutes of limitations although not ignored have no obligatory application, but the court will instead apply the doctrine of laches." (quoting Hyland v. Simmons, 152 N.J. | 2 | 3 |
Northwest Covenant Medical Center v. Fishmangreen2 sentences2024Ctr. v. Fishman, 167 N.J. 123, 140 (2001); see also United States v. Scurry, 193 N.J. 492, 503 (2008) ("The doctrine of laches 'is invoked to deny a party enforcement of a known right when the party engages in an inexcusable and unexplained delay in exercising that right to the prejudice of the other party.'" (quoting Knorr v. Smeal, 178 N.J. 169, 180-81 (2003))); Clarke v. Clarke ex rel. 2001C The Court's opinion cogently concludes, ante at 167 N.J. at 140-42 , 770 A. 2d at 244-45 , that the Appellate Division erred in applying the equitable doctrine of laches to bar Northwest's appeal. | 1 | 2 |
Clarke v. Clarke Ex Rel. Costinegreen2 sentences2024The judge explained she was "not moved" by defendant's submissions regarding "her history of involvement with counselors and therapists" and found defendant's requests for relief "could have been submitted earlier." The judge also found plaintiff had been prejudiced by her delay, indicating he could not "go back and ask . . . if there's coverage." Considering the first element of the doctrine of laches, whether there was a "failure to assert a right within a reasonable time," Clarke, 359 N.J. 2024The judge explained she was "not moved" by defendant's submissions regarding "her history of involvement with counselors and therapists" and found defendant's requests for relief "could have been submitted earlier." The judge also found plaintiff had been prejudiced by her delay, indicating he could not "go back and ask . . . if there's coverage." Considering the first element of the doctrine of laches, whether there was a "failure to assert a right within a reasonable time," Clarke, 359 N.J. | 1 | 2 |
National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Morgangreen2 sentences2004This defense requires proof of (1) lack of diligence by the party against whom the defense is asserted, and (2) prejudice to the party asserting the defense. [Id. at 121-22, 122 S.Ct. at 2076-77 , 153 L.Ed.2d at 127 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).] *432 In Shepherd, supra, we decided to “apply Morgan’s analytical framework when evaluating a state cause of action under the LAD.” 174 N.J. at 20 , 803 A.2d 611 . 2004This defense requires proof of (1) lack of diligence by the party against whom the defense is asserted, and (2) prejudice to the party asserting the defense. [Id. at 121-22, 122 S.Ct. at 2076-77 , 153 L.Ed.2d at 127 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).] *432 In Shepherd, supra, we decided to “apply Morgan’s analytical framework when evaluating a state cause of action under the LAD.” 174 N.J. at 20 , 803 A.2d 611 . | 1 | 2 |
Brett v. Great American Recreation, Inc.green1 sentence2026Recreation, Inc., 144 N.J. 479, 503-04 (1996), and therefore, the equitable doctrine of laches applies. | 1 | 1 |
Kimmelman v. Henkels & McCoy, Inc.green1 sentence2026Defendant further argues the Commissioner misapplied the penalty framework set forth in Kimmelman v. Henckel & McCoy, 108 N.J. 123, 132 (1987), and that a proper application of those factors would have warranted substantially less draconian sanctions than those imposed on him. | 1 | 1 |
Cummings v. Bahrgreen1 sentence2026Cummings v. Bahr, 295 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
In re the Estate of Thomasgreen1 sentence2025The trial court also found "[a]t some point, equitable principles, such as those embodied in the doctrine of laches, apply and bar 'the prosecution of an equitable claim if the suitor has inexplicably, inexcusably[,] and unreasonably delayed pursuing a claim to the prejudice of another party.'" (quoting In re Est. of Thomas, 431 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Heuer v. Heuergreen1 sentence2024In order to recover in equity, a party "must be with clean hands." Heuer v. Heuer, 152 N.J. 226, 238 (1998). | 1 | 1 |
Jacobs v. New Jersey State Highway Authoritygreen1 sentence2024State Highway Auth., 54 N.J. 393, 396 (1969). | 1 | 1 |
Dorchester Manor v. Borough of New Milfordgreen1 sentence2024Laches has been defined as an "unexplainable and inexcusable delay in enforcing a known right whereby prejudice has resulted to the other party because of such delay." County of Morris v. Fauver, 153 N.J. 80 , 105 A-1943-23 10 (1998) (quoting Dorchester Manor v. Borough of New Milford, 287 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Union City Housing Authority v. Commonwealth Trust Co.green2 sentences2024See id. at 417 ("Laches is an equitable doctrine, operating as an affirmative defense that precludes relief when there is an 'unexplainable and inexcusable delay' in exercising a right, which results in prejudice to another party.") (quoting Cnty. of Morris v. Fauver, 153 N.J. 80, 105 (1998)). 2024See id. at 417 ("Laches is an equitable doctrine, operating as an affirmative defense that precludes relief when there is an 'unexplainable and inexcusable delay' in exercising a right, which results in prejudice to another party.") (quoting Cnty. of Morris v. Fauver, 153 N.J. 80, 105 (1998)). | 1 | 1 |
M.J. Ocean, Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxationgreen1 sentence2023Ocean, Inc. v. Dir., Div. of Taxation, 23 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Velasquez v. Franzgreen1 sentence2022Thus, the judge concluded plaintiff was barred by "the doctrines of res judicata and la[]ches" from requesting "any further . . . relief in this regard." See Velasquez v. Franz, 123 N.J. 498, 505 (1991) ("[T]he doctrine of res judicata provides that a cause of action between parties that has been finally determined on the merits by a tribunal having jurisdiction cannot be relitigated by those parties or their privies in a new proceeding." (citing Roberts v. Goldner, 79 N.J. 82, 85 (1979))); Knorr v. Smeal, 178 N.J. 169, 180-81 (2003) ("[The doctrine of laches] is invoked to deny a party enforc | 1 | 1 |
Roberts v. Goldnergreen1 sentence2022Thus, the judge concluded plaintiff was barred by "the doctrines of res judicata and la[]ches" from requesting "any further . . . relief in this regard." See Velasquez v. Franz, 123 N.J. 498, 505 (1991) ("[T]he doctrine of res judicata provides that a cause of action between parties that has been finally determined on the merits by a tribunal having jurisdiction cannot be relitigated by those parties or their privies in a new proceeding." (citing Roberts v. Goldner, 79 N.J. 82, 85 (1979))); Knorr v. Smeal, 178 N.J. 169, 180-81 (2003) ("[The doctrine of laches] is invoked to deny a party enforc | 1 | 1 |
The Pitney Bowes Bank, Inc. v. Abc Caging Fulfillmentgreen1 sentence2020"Motions for reconsideration are governed by Rule 4:49-2, which provides that the decision to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration rests within the sound discretion of the trial court." Pitney Bowes Bank, Inc. v. ABC Caging Fulfillment, 440 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Jack Nissim & Sons, Inc. v. Bordentown Townshipgreen1 sentence2019The doctrine of laches does not apply to 99 Murray Hill’s application for Freeze Act relief “Within the Freeze Act there is no specified time limitation, after entry of base-year judgment, to seek affirmative relief; nor is there any such time limitation in any other legislation or court rule.” Jack Nissim & Sons, Inc. v. Township of Bordentown, 10 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
| Lisa Llewelyn v. James Shewchukgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Patterson v. Hewittgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Kopin v. Orange Products, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Baird v. Bellottigreen | 1 | 1 |
| West Jersey Title & Guaranty Co. v. Industrial Trust Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Flammia v. Mallergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Donnelly v. Ritzendollargreen | 1 | 1 |
| Kazin v. Kazingreen | 1 | 1 |
| Untermann v. Untermanngreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Application of Meadowlands Communications Systems, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Holloway v. Township of Pennsaukengreen | 1 | 1 |
| Oldfield v. Stoeco Homes, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| McKenna v. New Jersey Highway Authoritygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Auciello v. Stauffergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Jersey. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Borough of Princeton v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders of Mercer Cty.
green
2 sentences2008Lastly, though Deptford never raised the defense of laches at the time partial summary judgment on the issue of liability was granted to plaintiff, we find further support for our conclusion that limiting plaintiff’s damage claim is not inequitable precisely because he failed to initiate an action to compel any auction of the vehicles for several years. “[T]he ‘central issue’ in determining whether the laches doctrine bars a lawsuit ‘is whether it is inequitable to permit the claim to be enforced.’ ” Borough of Princeton v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 169 N.J. 135, 158 , 777 A.2d 19 (2001)(quot 2008Lastly, though Deptford never raised the defense of laches at the time partial summary judgment on the issue of liability was granted to plaintiff, we find further support for our conclusion that limiting plaintiff’s damage claim is not inequitable precisely because he failed to initiate an action to compel any auction of the vehicles for several years. “[T]he ‘central issue’ in determining whether the laches doctrine bars a lawsuit ‘is whether it is inequitable to permit the claim to be enforced.’ ” Borough of Princeton v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 169 N.J. 135, 158 , 777 A.2d 19 (2001)(quot | 3 | 2004–2012 |
Talcott Fromkin v. Freehold Tp.
green
2 sentences2020Talcott, 383 N.J. 2020Talcott, 383 N.J. | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Montells v. Haynes
green
2 sentences2004Fairness to the accuser, the accused, and to the judicial system require a timely adjudication of discrimination claims. [ Montells, supra, 133 N.J. at 293 , 627 A.2d 654 .] The above policy considerations form the context within which we measure a laches defense. 2004Fairness to the accuser, the accused, and to the judicial system require a timely adjudication of discrimination claims. [ Montells, supra, 133 N.J. at 293 , 627 A.2d 654 .] The above policy considerations form the context within which we measure a laches defense. | 2 | 2003–2004 |
Shepherd v. Hunterdon Developmental Center
green
2 sentences2004In Shepherd, supra, we explained: “[A] victim’s knowledge of a claim is insufficient to start the limitations clock so long as the defendant continues the series of non-discrete acts on which the claim as a whole is based____[A] victim’s knowledge becomes relevant within the framework of an employer’s laches defense.” 174 N.J. at 22 , 803 A.2d 611 . 2004In Shepherd, supra, we explained: “[A] victim’s knowledge of a claim is insufficient to start the limitations clock so long as the defendant continues the series of non-discrete acts on which the claim as a whole is based____[A] victim’s knowledge becomes relevant within the framework of an employer’s laches defense.” 174 N.J. at 22 , 803 A.2d 611 . | 2 | 2003–2004 |
Newburgh v. Arrigo
green
1 sentence2025Plaintiff argues the judge abused her discretion by applying the doctrine of laches to the 2 Newburgh v. Arrigo, 88 N.J. 529 (1982). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Kern v. Kern
green
2 sentences2025Ct. 2005), the court explicitly held that the application of the doctrine of laches in Pennsylvania "does not depend on a mechanical passage of time." The Kern court specifically recognized that "the doctrine of laches may bar a suit in equity where a comparable suit at law would not be barred by an analogous statute of limitations." Ibid. 2025Ct. 2005), the court explicitly held that the application of the doctrine of laches in Pennsylvania "does not depend on a mechanical passage of time." The Kern court specifically recognized that "the doctrine of laches may bar a suit in equity where a comparable suit at law would not be barred by an analogous statute of limitations." Ibid. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Mutual Life Insurance v. Goddard green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| First Trust Nat. Assoc. v. Merola green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| In re the Probate of the Alleged Will of Ewert neutral | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| In re the Estate of Mosery green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Prime Accounting Department v. Township of Carney's Point green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. Phillips green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Last v. Audubon Park Associates green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Hyland v. Simmons green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| State v. Tolbert neutral | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| West Park Ave., Inc. v. Township of Ocean green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Hyland v. Simmons green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| CHEZ SEZ, VIII., INC. v. Poritz green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Mancini v. Township of Teaneck neutral | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Mancini v. Township of Teaneck green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Notch View Associates v. Smith green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| De Hay v. West New York neutral | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Federal Trust Co. v. Taylor neutral | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| William Baird v. Francis X. Bellotti, Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, Plaintiffs-Intervenors, William Baird v. Francis X. Bellotti green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Untermann v. Untermann neutral | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| Lake Development Enterprises, Inc. v. Kojetinsky green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| State v. Kowal green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| Paul Eugene Tessier v. United States green | 1 | 1961–1961 |
| Pennsylvania Co. for Insurance on Lives & Granting Annuities v. Bodek neutral | 1 | 1949–1949 |
| Faulkner v. Wassmer green | 1 | 1949–1949 |
| Massie v. Asbestos Brake Co. green | 1 | 1942–1942 |
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.