LESTER

v.

CALIFORNIA

Citator

Cited By (56 total)

• Env't Def. Fund & Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Marsh, 651 F.2d 983 (5th Cir. 1981)
  …ld that the equitable doctrine of laches barred any challenge to the Corps’ authority, and a panel of this court affirmed that judgment on appeal. EDF v. Alexander, 467 F.Supp. 885 (N.D.Miss.1979), aff’d, 614 F. 2d 474 (5th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 919, 101 S.Ct. 316, 66 L.Ed.2d 146 (1980) (“EDF II”). But this first issue was also based upon some of the post-1971 changes listed in section I.B. above, most of which did not become public knowledge until the 1976 study was released. The district c…
• Ambrit, Inc. v. Kraft, Inc., 805 F.2d 974 (11th Cir. 1986)
  …) claim is not clearly erroneous. The verdict is therefore affirmed. . Citibank, N.A. v. Citibanc Group, Inc., 724 F. 2d 1540, 1546 (11th Cir.1984), citing, Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Alexander, 614 F. 2d 474, 478 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 919, 101 S.Ct. 316, 66 L.Ed.2d 146 (1980). There is no argument that the delay in this case was so outrageous and unreasonable that laches may be established without a showing of prejudice. See University of Pittsburgh v. Champion Products, Inc., 686 F.…
• Conagra, Inc. v. Singleton, 743 F.2d 1508 (11th Cir. 1984)
  …of three elements: (1) a delay in asserting a right or claim; (2) that the delay was not excusable; and (3) that the delay caused the defendant undue prejudice.14 Environmental Defense Fund v. Alexander, 614 F. 2d 474, 478 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 919, 101 S.Ct. 316, 66 L.Ed.2d 146 (1980). The test for laches or estoppel is flexible, requiring a careful examination of both the delay and the prejudice caused by that delay. See Citibank, N.A. v. Citibanc Group, Inc., 724 F. 2d at 1546.15 In addit…

  ← 1 / 2 →