plus attendant facts and circumstances, that it would be an injustice to permit presently the assertion of a claim against him.” Nilon Bros. Enterprises v. Lucente, 315 Pa.Super. 343, 461 A.2d 1312, 1314 (1983). Unlike the application of the statute of limitations, exercise of the doctrine of laches does not depend on a mechanical passage of time. Indeed, the doctrine of laches may bar a suit in equity where a comparable suit at law would not be barred by an analogous statute of limitations. Moreover, [t]he party asserting laches as a defense must present evidence demonstrating prejudice from the lapse of time. Such evidence may include establishing that a witness has died or become unavailable, that substant 7 A.2d 763, 768 (1993), appeal denied, 538 Pa. 671, 649 A.2d 673 (1994) (<HOLDING>). By contrast, in cases where a co-executor’s
holding that the plaintiffs lawsuit which was filed despite a general release in the parties settlement agreement constituted a material breach of the settlement agreement holding that a settlement agreement is not a court order and therefore a violation of the settlement agreement would not subject a party to contempt holding that because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the expert report adequate as to the vicarious liability claim against the hospital based on the actions of the doctors plaintiffs suit against the hospital including her claim that the hospital was vicariously hable for the actions of its nurses could proceed holding estate was bound by single coadministrators execution of agreement releasing doctors and hospital from liability for accident that killed decedent in exchange for cash settlement holding that a binding settlement on a tax liability must follow the requirements of the tax code which include the execution of a closing agreement