38 So. 3d 731 - Mills v. Dailey’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘ “ ‘Laches, in legal significance, is not mere delay, but delay that works a disadvantage to another. So long as parties are in the same condition, it matters little whether one presses a right promptly or slowly, within limits allowed by law; but when, knowing his rights, he takes no step to enforce them until the condition of the other party has, in good faith, become so changed that he cannot be restored to his former state, if the right be then enforced, delay becomes inequitable, and operates as es-toppel against the assertion of the right. The disadvantage may come from loss of evidence, change of title, intervention of equities, and other causes; but, when a court sees negligence on one side and injury therefrom on the other, it is a ground for denial of relief.’ Stiness, J., in Chase v. Chase, 20 R.I. 202 , 37 A. 804 [ (1897) ].” 5 Pom. Eq. Jur., § 21. “ ‘ “Laches, as has been well said, does not, like limitation, grow out of the mere passage of time, but it is founded upon the inequity of permitting the claim to be enforced — an inequity founded upon some change in the condition or relation of the property, or the parties. — Galliher v. Cadwell, 145 U.S. 368 [ 12 S.Ct. 873 , 36 L.Ed. 738 (1892) ].” First Nat. Bank [Waller ] v. Nelson, 106 Ala. 535 , 18 So. 154 [ (1895) ]. See, also, Wise v. Helms, 252 Ala. 227, 230 , 40 So.2d 700 [(1949)]; Meeks v. Meeks, 251 Ala. 435, 437 , 37 So.2d 914 [ (1948) ]; Fanning v. Fanning, 210 Ala. 575, 576 , 98 So. 804 [ (1924) ].’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. L.B. Whitfield, III Family LLC v. Whitfield

2. “‘Laches’ is defined as neglect to assert a right or a claim that, taken together with a lapse of time and other circumstances causing disadvantage or prejudice to the adverse party, operates as a bar. See Black’s Law Dictionary 787 (5th ed,1979). Laches is an equitable doctrine designed to prevent unfairness to a defendant ... due to a plaintiffs ... delay in filing suit, in the absence of an appropriate statute of limitations. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Dresser Industries, Inc., 668 F.2d 1199 (11th Cir.1982). It is based on the public policy discouraging stale demands and is not based upon mere lapse of time. It is principally a question of the inequity of permitting a claim to be enforced where some change in condition has taken place that would make the enforcement of the claim unjust. Davis v. Alabama Power Co., 383 F.Supp. 880 (N.D.Ala. 1974), affirmed, 542 F.2d 650 (5th Cir. 1976), affirmed, 431 U.S. 581 , 97 S.Ct. 2002 , 52 L.Ed.2d 595 (1977). It is designed to prevent unfairness caused by a party’s delay in asserting a claim or by his failure to do something that equity would have required him to do. Sims v. Lewis, 374 So.2d 298 (Ala.1979); United States v. Olin Corp., 606 F.Supp. 1301 (N.D.Ala.1985); Golightly v. Golightly, 474 So.2d 1150 (Ala.Civ.App.1985).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re Crowley