6 Delaware opinions name it 3 courts 1995–2019 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
TIFD III-X LLC v. Fruehauf Production Co.green2 sentences2019The Trust and Terramar both engaged on the issue during post-trial argument. 23 See TIFD III-X, 883 A.2d at 863–64 (“To the extent that [the limited partner’s] claims arise out of any ‘transaction’ at all, that transaction was the dispute between the parties regarding the interpretation of [the distribution provision] and the ensuing decision by [the limited partner] to dissolve the Partnership, a ‘transaction’ to which [the limited partner’s] alleged past breaches of the Partnership Agreement are unrelated.”). 42 general partner’s effort to resuscitate its claims.24 In this case, the Trust ca 2014Generally, “[r]ecoupment is a common-law equitable doctrine that permits a defendant to assert a defensive claim aimed at reducing the amount of damages recoverable by a plaintiff.” 13 In order to assert a recoupment claim, the defendant must show that (1) the claim arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as the plaintiff’s suit; (2) the claim is purely a defensive set-off and does not seek affirmative recovery; and (3) both the primary damage claim and the recoupment claim involve the same litigants.14 Additionally, “to the extent that a valid recoupment claim is asserted defensively | 1 | 2 |
Shockley v. Stategreen2 sentences2019Id. at *18. 22 Id. at *20 (citing Finger Lakes Capital P’rs, LLC v. Honeoye Lake Acq., LLC, 151 A.3d 450, 453 (Del. 2016)). 7 plaintiff’ and that ‘the claim is purely a defensive set-off and does not seek an affirmative recovery from the plaintiff.’”23 “Both the primary damages claim and a claim in recoupment must involve the same litigants.”24 (10) In this case, the Court of Chancery held that the Trust could not save its time- barred challenges as a recoupment defense “because the time-barred challenges do not arise out of the same transaction as the claims that Terramar has asserted under S 2019Thus, we conclude that the Court of Chancery correctly held that the three-year statute of limitations precluded assertion of the Trust’s challenges predating June 28, 2015 (three years prior to the Trust’s assertion of its affirmative defenses).27 23 Id. (quoting 80 C.J.S. | 1 | 1 |
NVF Co. v. New Castle Countygreen1 sentence2016See NVF Co, v. New Castle Cnty., 276 B.R. 340, 353 [D. | 1 | 1 |
Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Notisgreen1 sentence1995Corp. v. Notis, 602 A.2d 1164, 1166 (Me.1992); Marine American State Bank v. Lincoln, 433 N.W.2d 709, 712 (Iowa 1988); cf. Riggs, 832 F.Supp. at 151 n. 5 (disagreeing with the analysis in Notis and suggesting that the two year statute of limitations of the ECOA would bar a claim in the nature of a recoupment defense). | 1 | 1 |
Marine American State Bank of Bloomington v. Lincolngreen1 sentence1995Corp. v. Notis, 602 A.2d 1164, 1166 (Me.1992); Marine American State Bank v. Lincoln, 433 N.W.2d 709, 712 (Iowa 1988); cf. Riggs, 832 F.Supp. at 151 n. 5 (disagreeing with the analysis in Notis and suggesting that the two year statute of limitations of the ECOA would bar a claim in the nature of a recoupment defense). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Delaware. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
PNC Bank v. Turner
green
2 sentences2014Delaware cases have recognized recoupment in both regards, but never has a court dismissed the counterclaim because the same theory was asserted as an affirmative defense.18 Exelon has sufficiently satisfied the pleading requirements for the recoupment claim 16 PNC Bank, Delaware v. Turner, 659 A.2d 222 (Del. 2014Super. 1995). 17 Id. 18 See TIFD III-X LLC, 883 A.2d 854 (describing the doctrine of recoupment as either a counterclaim or affirmative defense). 9 Deere v. Exelon C.A. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Boone National Savings & Loan Ass'n, F.A. v. Crouch
green
1 sentence2004Ass’n, F.A. v. Crouch, 47 S.W.3d 371 (Mo.2001) (where lender sued loan guarantor to enforce guaranty, guarantor could assert that lender’s alleged violation of Equal Credit Opportunity Act ("ECOA”) rendered the guaranty unenforceable as a recoupment defense to lender’s claim even though statute of limitations on affirmative ECOA claim had already run). 24 .20 Am. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
United States v. Dalm
green
2 sentences1995United States v. Dalm, 494 U.S. 596, 605 , 110 S.Ct. 1361, 1367 , 108 L.Ed.2d 548 (1990) (citing Bull v. United States, 295 U.S. 247, 262 , 55 S.Ct. 695, 700-701 , 79 L.Ed. 1421 (1935)). 1995United States v. Dalm, 494 U.S. 596, 605 , 110 S.Ct. 1361, 1367 , 108 L.Ed.2d 548 (1990) (citing Bull v. United States, 295 U.S. 247, 262 , 55 S.Ct. 695, 700-701 , 79 L.Ed. 1421 (1935)). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Bull v. United States
green
2 sentences1995United States v. Dalm, 494 U.S. 596, 605 , 110 S.Ct. 1361, 1367 , 108 L.Ed.2d 548 (1990) (citing Bull v. United States, 295 U.S. 247, 262 , 55 S.Ct. 695, 700-701 , 79 L.Ed. 1421 (1935)). 1995United States v. Dalm, 494 U.S. 596, 605 , 110 S.Ct. 1361, 1367 , 108 L.Ed.2d 548 (1990) (citing Bull v. United States, 295 U.S. 247, 262 , 55 S.Ct. 695, 700-701 , 79 L.Ed. 1421 (1935)). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Riggs Nat. Bank of Washington, DC v. Webster
green
1 sentence1995Corp. v. Notis, 602 A.2d 1164, 1166 (Me.1992); Marine American State Bank v. Lincoln, 433 N.W.2d 709, 712 (Iowa 1988); cf. Riggs, 832 F.Supp. at 151 n. 5 (disagreeing with the analysis in Notis and suggesting that the two year statute of limitations of the ECOA would bar a claim in the nature of a recoupment defense). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.