Editing Laches (equity) (section)

==Compared to statute of limitations==
The defense of ''laches'' resembles a [[statute of limitations]] since both are concerned with ensuring that plaintiffs bring their claims in a timely fashion.

However,  a statute of limitations is concerned only with the time that has passed. Laches is concerned with the reasonableness of the delay in a particular situation and so is more case-specific and more focused on the equitable conduct of the plaintiff. Those considerations are not unique to the laches defense because they are characteristic of equitable reasoning and equitable remedies,<ref name="Little Bit of Laches" /> whereas limitation is a statutory remedy.

In the US, the proper disposal of claims in light of those two areas of law has required attention through to the Supreme Court. In ''[[Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer]]'' (2014), the [[US Supreme Court]] rebuffed a defendant's claim that laches barred a copyright infringement suit because Congress had established a detailed statutory scheme, including a statute of limitations.<ref name=Fisher>{{cite journal | author = Fisher, Daniel | url = https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2014/05/19/unusual-split-as-supreme-court-upholds-raging-bull-suit-vs-mgm/ | date = 2014  | title = Supreme Court Upholds 'Raging Bull' Suit vs. MGM | journal = [[Forbes (magazine)|Forbes]] | issue = May 19, 2014 | access-date = 5 January 2016}}</ref>
<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-1315|title=Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc.|work=Legal Information Institute (LII) |access-date=5 January 2016}}</ref>{{primary source inline|date=January 2016}}
<!--
SENTENCE CAN BE READ AS HAVING TWO OPPOSING MEANINGS (as statutory scheme for limitations carrying the day, vs. an exception being made by the Court). NEED TO CLARIFY THE RELATION OF THE "BECAUSE" CLAUSE TO THE MAIN SENTENCE.
-->