Legal Opinion
Nakahara v. NS 1991 American Trust
Court of Chancery of Delaware
Decided September 28, 1998No. 15905PublishedCited by 47 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION ON REMAND
CHANDLER, Chancellor.
This ease raises the novel question of whether a court of equity should permit a party to avoid the impact of their inequitable conduct by attempting to undo that conduct after an adverse verdict. For the reasons stated below, I deny the Plaintiffs Rule 60(b) motion and hold that Plaintiffs, who were previously denied equitable relief due to their own unclean hands,1 did not successfully purge the taint of their inequitable actions. Therefore, I will not grant the relief from judgment that they now seek.
I. BACKGROUND
The operative facts underlying the…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Precision Instrument Manufacturing Co. v. Automotive Maintenance MacHinery Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Keystone Driller Co. v. General Excavator Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1933
- Johnson v. Yellow Cab Transit Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Gaudiosi v. MellonCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1959
- Deweese v. ReinhardSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by47 opinions
- RBC Capital Markets, LLC v. JervisSupreme Court of Delaware · 2015
- SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals Co. v. Merck & Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 2000
- Ajay Sports, Inc. v. CasazzaColorado Court of Appeals · 2000
- In Re HealthSouth Corp. Shareholders LitigationCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 2003
- Milford Power Co. v. PDC Milford Power, LLCSuperior Court of Delaware · 2004
42 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.