Loesch, 937 F.2d 1237, 1247-48 (7th Cir. 1991). Other jurisdictions are in accord. See also Teamsters, 283 F.3d at 881 (“[A]s with many equitable defenses, the defense of laches is equally available in suits at law”) (citations omitted); Hickerson v. Vessels. 316 P.3d 620, 622 (Colo. 2014) (“[0]ur case law, since early statehood, recognizes the application of equitable remedies [in this case, laches] to legal claims.”); Bill, 285 Ill. Dec. 784, 812 N.E.2d at 612 (“While we agree that traditionally, statutes of limitations were generally applied to legal actions and the laches doctrine was applied to those actions based in equity, such ‘mechanical’ applications ai-e no longer followed”) (citation omitted); Dep’t of Banking and Finance v. Wilken, 217 Neb. 796, 352 N.W.2d 145, 149 (1984) (<HOLDING>) (citations omitted); Moore v. Starcher, 167
holding that the defense of laches was applicable in a contract action as follows the commonlaw rule is that equitable defenses cannot be used to defeat an action at law based on contract however we have not accepted that position but on the contrary we have held that any defense whether it be legal or equitable may be set up in any case holding that laches is an affirmative defense holding that where defense of laches was not pleaded denial of equitable relief on grounds of laches was error recognizing laches as an equitable defense to a motion to reopen holding that equitable defense of laches is inapplicable to claims of fraud