Legal Opinion · Concurrence

DeFazio v. Washington Public Power Supply System

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided March 20, 1984No. TC 16-81-11344; CA A26721; SC 29649Published

1Concurrence

*599LENT, LINDE, and ROBERTS, JJ.,

concurring.

The proponents of the validity of the challenged transactions contend that the plaintiffs’ action is barred by laches or estoppel. Some members of the court believe that the issue of laches need not be reached if the plaintiffs’ claim loses on the merits. We believe that it should be decided first. The court also is divided on the correct analysis.

“Laches” and “estoppel” are not different words for the same issue. A defendant’s claim of laches arises from a plaintiffs prejudicial delay in asserting a claim for equitable relief, while conduct that gives…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. United States v. HoarU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1821
  2. Chemical Bank v. Washington Public Power Supply SystemWashington Supreme Court · 1983
  3. Wiggins v. Barrett & Associates, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1983
  4. State v. Port of TillamookOregon Supreme Court · 1912
  5. Wills v. Nehalem Coal Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1908

21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API