Editing Laches (equity) (section)

==Origin, definition, overview==
{{more citations needed section|date=January 2016}}
Laches is a legal term derived from the [[Old French]] ''laschesse,'' meaning "remissness" or "dilatoriness", and is viewed as the opposite of "vigilance".<ref name="bld">{{cite book| chapter = Laches | title=Black's Law Dictionary | publisher = West  | year=2009 | edition=9th | editor-last=Garner|editor-first=Bryan A. | isbn=978-0314199492 | url = https://archive.org/details/blacksl_xxx_2009_00_5869 | url-access = registration  | access-date=5 January 2016}}</ref><ref>{{OED|Laches}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/laches|title=Laches [Definition of 'laches' by Merriam-Webster]|work=merriam-webster.com|access-date=5 January 2016}}</ref> The United States Supreme Court case ''Costello v. United States'' 365 US 265, 282 (1961) is often cited for a definition of laches.<ref name=NewLaches>{{cite journal | last = Fort |first=Kathryn E. | url = http://digitalcommons.law.msu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1372&context=facpubs | title = The New Laches: Creating Title Where None Existed | volume = 16 | journal = George Mason Law Review | page = 357 | year = 2009 | access-date = 2013-05-03 | archive-date = 2016-03-05 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160305024806/http://digitalcommons.law.msu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1372&context=facpubs | url-status = dead }}</ref> ''Costello'' defined Laches as "Lack of diligence by the party against whom the defense is asserted combined with prejudice to the party asserting the defense".<ref>''Costello v. United States'', 365 U.S. 265 at 282 (1961)</ref><ref>''Galliher v. Cadwell'', 145 U. S. 368, 145 U. S. 372</ref><ref>''Southern Pacific Co. v. Bogert'', 250 U. S. 483, 250 U. S. 488-490</ref><ref>''Gardner v. Panama R. Co.'', 342 U. S. 29, 342 U. S. 31</ref>

Invoking laches is a reference to a lack of diligence and activity in making a legal claim, or moving forward with legal enforcement of a right, in particular with regard to [[equity (law)|equity]], and so is an "unreasonable delay pursuing a right or claim, in a way that prejudices the [opposing] party".<ref name="bld" /> When asserted in litigation, it is an [[Equity (law)|equitable]] defense, that is, a defense to a claim for an equitable remedy.<ref name="Little Bit of Laches">{{cite journal |url=https://www.vanderbiltlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/89/2014/01/Bray-Essay.pdf |title=A Little Bit of Laches Goes a Long Way: Notes on ''Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc.'' |volume=67 |pages=1–18 |journal=Vanderbilt Law Review en Banc | first=Samuel |last=Bray | date=2014 }}</ref> The essential element of ''laches'' is an unreasonable delay by the plaintiff in bringing the claim; because laches is an equitable defense, it is ordinarily applied only to claims for equitable relief (such as injunctions), and not to claims for legal relief (such as damages).<ref name="Little Bit of Laches" /> The person invoking laches is asserting that an opposing party has "slept on its rights", and that, as a result of this delay, witnesses or evidence may have been lost or no longer available, and circumstances have changed such that it is no longer just to grant the [[plaintiff]]'s original claim;{{citation needed|date=January 2016}} hence, laches is associated with the maxim of equity: {{lang|la|[[Vigilantibus non dormientibus æquitas subvenit]]}} ("Equity aids the vigilant, not the sleeping ones [that is, those who sleep on their rights]").<ref name="Ibrahim" >{{cite journal | last = Ibrahim |first=Ashraf Ray | jstor = 1073651 | title = The Doctrine of Laches in International Law | journal = Virginia Law Review | volume = 83 | issue = 3 |pages = 647–692 | date = April 1997 | doi = 10.2307/1073651 }}</ref> Put another way, failure to assert one's rights in a timely manner can result in a claim being barred by laches. Sometimes courts will also require that the party invoking the doctrine has changed its position as a result of the delay, but that requirement is more typical of the related (but more stringent) defense and equally cause of action of [[estoppel]].{{citation needed|date=January 2016}}