[Skinny Tee]

Originally Posted by sportscurmudgeon

I did not anticipate - nor did I intend - for this thead to go in the direction that it did.

May I suggest to everyone here that they go and look up the legal term "Doctrine of Laches" to understand what the court ruling was and why the court made the ruling on the narrowest of terms possible?

In addition to any adrenaline-driven emotion regarding this matter, there is an interesting legal/social set of issues here which might start an interesting dialog on the matter.

Okay. I did what you said and I still don't get it. I think it's because I need a few more hamsters in my brainwheel.

LACHES, DOCTRINE OF - Based on the maxim that equity aids the vigilant and not those who procrastinate regarding their rights; Neglect to assert a right or claim that, together with lapse of time and other circumstances, prejudices an adverse party. Neglecting to do what should or could, have been done to assert a claim or right for an unreasonable and unjustified time causing disadvantage to another.

Laches is similar to 'statute of limitations' except is equitable rather than statutory and is a common affirmative defense raised in civil actions.

Laches is derived from the French 'lecher' and is nearly synonymous with negligence.

In general, when a party has been guilty of laches in enforcing his right by great delay and lapse of time, this circumstance will at common law prejudice and sometimes operate in bar of a remedy which is discretionary for the court to afford. In courts of equity delay will also generally be prejudicial.

But laches may be excused from ignorance of the party's rights; from the obscurity of the transaction; by the pendency of a suit, and; where the party labors under a legal disability, as insanity, infancy and the like.