Legal Opinion · Dissent

Jeffers v. Clinton

District Court, E.D. Arkansas

Decided January 26, 1990No. H-C-89-004Published

1DissentEisele, Chief District Judge

(Eisele # 1)

Filed Dec. 7, 1989.

The majority opinion dealing with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act was filed herein on December 4, 1989. In that opinion, the majority concluded that the claims of the plaintiffs were not barred by the doctrine of laches. I dissent.1

I agree with Judge Arnold that laches is an equitable defense which means essentially that if there is unreasonable and unjustified delay in the filing of a lawsuit, and this delay causes prejudice, the court of equity may dismiss the complaint. As stated by Judge Arnold:

The greater the delay, or the more unreasonable, the less…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Baker v. CarrSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
  2. Reynolds v. SimsSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  3. Owens v. OkureSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  4. Thornburg v. GinglesSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  5. City of Mobile v. BoldenSupreme Court of the United States · 1980

16 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