4 ms·

You're thinking of laches: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laches_(equity) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laches_(equity) "Laches refers to a lack of diligence an

You're thinking of laches: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laches_(equity) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laches_(equity) "Laches refers to a lack of diligence and activity in making a legal claim, or moving forward with legal enforcement of a right, particularly in regard to equity" It doesn't apply because nobody is claiming tribal groups failed to protect their interests. They haven't just been blowing off and watching TV all this time.

btilly 6y ago
I am not saying that this is a legal argument for how this case should have been resolved. I'm saying that this is a legal argument against the specific reasoning within the decision. That reasoning being, Unlawful acts, performed long enough and with sufficient vigor, are never enough to amend the law. And yet here is a well-established example where an unlawful act, performed long enough and with sufficient vigor, does become enough to amend the law. I picked you to respond to because of the several people pointing out in one way or another that squatters rights (which, incidentally, has its own doctrines separate from latches) does not actually apply as a way to resolve this case.
- jjeaff 6y ago
  When you take over land by squatting, you aren't "amending the law". You are amending land records using the judicial system. So I don't think the comparison holds up. And considering that these Indian tribes have been fighting for their land since the beginning, it also doesn't really meet the criteria of someone squatting unnoticed on some land. If someone just started building on your land right now, and you filed a complaint and called the police and no one would come to help you remove them legally for a decade, they aren't going to eventually just get title to your land. Filing complaints and calling the police has disputed their claim.

btilly 6y ago

I am not saying that this is a legal argument for how this case should have been resolved. I'm saying that this is a legal argument against the specific reasoning within the decision. That reasoning being, Unlawful acts, performed long enough and with sufficient vigor, are never enough to amend the law. And yet here is a well-established example where an unlawful act, performed long enough and with sufficient vigor, does become enough to amend the law. I picked you to respond to because of the several people pointing out in one way or another that squatters rights (which, incidentally, has its own doctrines separate from latches) does not actually apply as a way to resolve this case.

jjeaff 6y ago
When you take over land by squatting, you aren't "amending the law". You are amending land records using the judicial system. So I don't think the comparison holds up. And considering that these Indian tribes have been fighting for their land since the beginning, it also doesn't really meet the criteria of someone squatting unnoticed on some land. If someone just started building on your land right now, and you filed a complaint and called the police and no one would come to help you remove them legally for a decade, they aren't going to eventually just get title to your land. Filing complaints and calling the police has disputed their claim.