laches [Law French "remissness; slackness"] (14c) 1. Unreasonable delay in pursuing a right or claim — almost always an equitable one — in a way that prejudices the party against whom relief is sought. — Also termed sleeping on rights.
Also Latin expression: Vigilantibus non dormientibus subvenit lex. The law supports the waking, not the sleeping. Sometimes stated, he who sleeps upon his rights, loses them.
An example might be Dominion voting machines. It was widely claimed that everyone has known of Dominion problems for years. The court may assert that laches applies and a complaint only filed after the election is untimely. The rationale would essentially be that one should have complained before the election; not wait until the election results were known to seek to have the result voided.
The word looked close enough to the Spanish for “milk” /not/ to draw the equivalency.
Thanks for the dictionary def.
As the definition says, laches is a defense that can be used in cases that are equitable in nature. What does that mean? Cases can be “at law”, i.e. based on a statute or law, or “in equity”, the kind that a court of equity, one that doesn’t necessarily follow a written rule, but rules of fairness.
It’s a long story, but in a nutshell, in England they established courts of equity to go along with courts of law. Certain types of cases were allowed to be heard there. The most common one, which we still adhere to today, was disputes over a loan on real property, a mortgage. The Court of Equity was responsible for protecting the interest the owner had in the property, even if, at law, he was late on a payment and the lender had the “legal” right to take the property. This is why the value of the property over and above the mortgage is today called your “equity”.
In the US, there are no courts of equity, but all regular courts hear cases that were traditionally in courts of equity, and will apply the principles and rules of courts of equity. Almost all cases nowadays are “at law”, but some, such as the mortgage situation mentioned above, are in equity.
In cases at law, the only standard that applies to whether you filed a suit on time is the statute of limitations for that kind of suit. Two years is two years. In equity, one must do equity to receive equity. So if you have unreasonably delayed filing an action to the detriment of the other party, then laches may bar the suit.
What I don’t understand is why laches, as opposed to a statute of limitations, was applied to the lawsuits filed by Trump and his supporters. Were they not based on federal statutes and the Constitution? I would have to read the opinions to see what their justification for applying laches was. And I really don’t have the time to waste to read the opinions of corrupt judges, where they probably just made it up anyway. If Sidney Powell or Rudy address the issue in their appeals, I will be interested in reading what they say.
Laches is derp bullshit as applied to this. The timeframe is absurd. The true use of the concept is under equity issues like not enforcing or using a right or way for decades, or you “remembered” a debtor owed you 500 bucks from 30 years ago after he was published as winning the lottery...
This situation could be called the "Schrödinger's-cat-not-yet-ripe-but-then-instantly-laches conundrum".
Some courts have ruled that a complaint prior to the election could not demonstrate harm (not ripe so don't even bother to present evidence) but some courts say even though you wait to see if there is harm as a result of the election, you are too late (so don't even bother to present evidence) then they cry "laches" and loose the dogs of judicial cowardice.