Opinion ID: 2273949
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Analogous Statute of Limitations

Text: The general rule for determining which statute of limitations should apply by analogy to a suit in equity is that `the applicable statute of limitations should be applied as a bar in those cases which fall within that field of equity jurisdiction which is concurrent with analogous suits at law.' [18] Delaware courts use the following test for determining whether a legal claim is analogous to the equitable claim at issue: [W]here the statute bars the legal remedy, it shall bar the equitable remedy in analogous cases, or in reference to the same subject matter, and where the legal and equitable claim so far correspond, that the only difference is, that the one remedy may be enforced in a court of law, and the other in a court of equity. [19] The Court of Chancery concluded that Frank's claims ultimately are predicated upon the AIP and that this action is `based upon a promise' within the meaning of section 8106: Frank's claims unquestionably relate to the same subject matter as would a legal claim for damages based on an alleged breach of the AIP. [20] As a practical matter, there is not likely to be much difference between the prosecution of Frank's claim here for an accounting and a claim for damages in a court of law. Thus, Frank's claims for declaratory relief and an accounting are analogous to a legal claim for the same relief. In the case of his request for injunctive relief, it is simply a remedy that may be enforced in a court of equity, as opposed to a claim for damages, which may be pursued at law. Therefore, the Court of Chancery held that the three-year statute of limitations in title 10, section 8106 of the Delaware Code was the analogous statute of limitations for purposes of its laches analysis.