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.
6 Delaware opinions name it 2 courts 1938–2025 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Federal United Corp. v. Havendergreen1 sentence2025United Corp. v. Havender, 11 A.2d 331, 343 (Del. 1940)). 27 Adams v. Jankouskas, 452 A.2d 148, 157 (Del. 1982) (“Knowledge and unreasonable delay are essential elements of the defense of laches. . . . | 1 | 1 |
Adams v. Jankouskasgreen1 sentence2025United Corp. v. Havender, 11 A.2d 331, 343 (Del. 1940)). 27 Adams v. Jankouskas, 452 A.2d 148, 157 (Del. 1982) (“Knowledge and unreasonable delay are essential elements of the defense of laches. . . . | 1 | 1 |
Reid v. Spaziogreen1 sentence2025No. 2024-0668-MTZ June 26, 2025 Page 7 of 34 resulting prejudice to that party.26 The defendant’s “[c]hange of position” is a “factor[] of supreme importance.”27 “[I]mplicit in the concept of laches is the requirement that there be a causal relationship between the delay [by a plaintiffs] and the alleged prejudice [to a defendant].”28 Only the defendant, or one in privity with her, has standing to complain of her prejudice caused by the plaintiff’s delay in suing her.29 Similarly, for a purely legal claim, only a defendant can wield a statute of limitations defense to preclude the plaintiff’s | 1 | 1 |
Keystone Driller Co. v. General Excavator Co.green1 sentence2022Excavator Co., 290 U.S. 240, 245-46 (1933) (“[The Court applying unclean hands is] not bound by formula or restrained by any limitation that tends to trammel the free and just exercise of discretion.”). 212 Nakahara, 718 A.2d at 522 . 213 NASDI Hldgs., LLC v. N. Am. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Delaware. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Security Trust Co. v. Spruance
green
2 sentences1969Security Trust Co. v. Spruance, 20 Del.Ch. 195 , 174 A. 285 ; Rissman v. Krenn & Dato Const. Co., 22 Del.Ch. 309 , 2 A.2d 128 . 1969Security Trust Co. v. Spruance, 20 Del.Ch. 195 , 174 A. 285 ; Rissman v. Krenn & Dato Const. Co., 22 Del.Ch. 309 , 2 A.2d 128 . | 2 | 1938–1969 |
Old Time Petroleum Co. v. Turcol
green
1 sentence2024Mem. 10 (citing Old Time Petroleum Co. v. Turcol, 156 A. 501 (Del. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Nakahara v. NS 1991 American Trust
green
2 sentences2022As an initial matter, the doctrine of unclean hands does not apply to the plaintiffs’ legal claims seeking declaratory judgments. “[A] party may not assert an equitable defense against a purely legal claim, even when the legal claim is pending in a court of equity.”213 The doctrine could apply only to the plaintiffs’ request for equitable remedies.214 210 Nakahara, 718 A.2d at 523 . 211 Id. at 522 ; see Keystone Driller Co. v. Gen. 2022As an initial matter, the doctrine of unclean hands does not apply to the plaintiffs’ legal claims seeking declaratory judgments. “[A] party may not assert an equitable defense against a purely legal claim, even when the legal claim is pending in a court of equity.”213 The doctrine could apply only to the plaintiffs’ request for equitable remedies.214 210 Nakahara, 718 A.2d at 523 . 211 Id. at 522 ; see Keystone Driller Co. v. Gen. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Getty Refining & Marketing Co. v. Park Oil, Inc.
green
1 sentence1992Getty Ref. & Marketing Co. v. Park Oil, Inc., Del.Ch., 385 A.2d 147 (1978), aff'd, Del.Supr., 407 A.2d 533 (1979). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Park Oil, Inc. v. Getty Refining & Marketing Co.
green
1 sentence1992Getty Ref. & Marketing Co. v. Park Oil, Inc., Del.Ch., 385 A.2d 147 (1978), aff'd, Del.Supr., 407 A.2d 533 (1979). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Rissman v. Krenn & Dato Construction Co.
neutral
2 sentences1969Security Trust Co. v. Spruance, 20 Del.Ch. 195 , 174 A. 285 ; Rissman v. Krenn & Dato Const. Co., 22 Del.Ch. 309 , 2 A.2d 128 . 1969Security Trust Co. v. Spruance, 20 Del.Ch. 195 , 174 A. 285 ; Rissman v. Krenn & Dato Const. Co., 22 Del.Ch. 309 , 2 A.2d 128 . | 1 | 1969–1969 |
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.