Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
2,431 results for '* court:"COURT OF DELAWARE"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2023-11-13
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Manufacturing | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Slomsky
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 21-00169
Court dismissed claim of misleading proxy statements where allegedly false statements about company's commitment to workforce diversity were non-actionable, aspirational puffery that was immaterial to the investing public.
Publication Date: 2023-11-06
Practice Area: Tax
Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Insurance
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Bibas
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Daniel Charles Herr, Law Office of Daniel C. Herr LLC, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
for defendant: Jennifer Marie Kinkus, William Edward Gamgort, Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: 1:21-cv-00249-SB
Breach of fiduciary duty claim was untimely under statute of limitations where plaintiff was on inquiry notice of his claim no later than his receipt of an IRS audit notice investigating transactions involving defendant.
Publication Date: 2023-11-06
Practice Area: Consumer Protection
Industry: Automotive
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Hughes
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Ian Connor Bifferato, The Bifferato Firm, Wilmington, DE; Rosemary M. Rivas, David Stein, Kyla J. Gibboney, Gibbs Law Group LLP, Oakland, CA; William H. Anderson, Handley Farah & Anderson PLLC, Boulder, CO; Rebecca P. Chang, Handley Farah & Anderson PLLC, New York, NY; Simon Wiener, Handley Farah & Anderson PLLC, Boston, MA; Jon M. Herskowitz, Baron & Herskowitz, Miami, FL for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Patrick M. Brannigan, Jessica L. Reno, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, Wilmington, DE; Stephen A. D’Aunoy, Scott H. Morgan, Thompson Coburn LLP, St. Louis, MO for defendant.
Case Number: 22-00518-TMH
Vehicle purchasers' claims arising from manufacturers destination charge practices failed where federal law only required vehicle window stickers to list the price charged by a manufacturer to a dealer to ship vehicles from the factory to the dealer lot and there was no evidence that allegedly inflated destination charges caused consumers to pay more for vehicles as ultimate purchase prices were set by dealerships.
Publication Date: 2023-10-30
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Transportation
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Bryson
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 21-679-WCB
Plaintiff's claim for insurance proceeds was not necessarily barred by contractual limitations period on indemnification claim where plaintiff asserted that the proceeds constituted retained property that defendant had an ongoing obligation to turn over after closing.
Publication Date: 2023-10-30
Practice Area: Litigation
Industry: Federal Government | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Noreika
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Ronald G. Poliquin, The Poliquin Firm LLC, Dover, DE; Brian R. Della Rocca, Compass Law Partners, Rockville, MD for plaintiff.
for defendant: David J. Soldo, Morris James LLP, Wilmington, DE; Alison Schary, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Washington, DC; Hilary Oran, Katherine M. Bolger, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, New York, NY; Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, James G. Touhey, Jr., Director, Torts Branch, Stephen R. Terrell, Attorney, Torts Branch, United States Department Of Justice, Washington, DC; David J. Margules, Ballard Spahr LLP, Wilmington, DE, Lauren Russell, Ballard Spahr LLP, Washington, DC, Kaitlin M. Gurney, Ballard Spahr LLP, Philadelphia, PA; Bartholomew J. Dalton, Dalton & Associates, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Abbe David Lowell, Sanaya M. Tamboli, Winston & Strawn LLP, Washington, DC; David A. Kolansky, Winston & Strawn LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
Case Number: 23-247 (MN)
Applying the four factors enumerated in Pioneer, the court determined that plaintiff's counsel's late filing of an opposition to a motion to dismiss due to his mis-reliance on the rules was not "excusable neglect" and denied his motion to reconsider the court's decision granting the motion to dismiss.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: T. BART GARY, JAKE CARROLL
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2023-10-23
Practice Area: Premises Liability
Industry: Retail
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Fallon
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Michael P. Minuti, McCann Dillon Jaffe & Lamb, LLC, Wilmington, DE; Gardenia L. Brooman, Verlin & Brooman, LLC, Bala Cynwyd, PA for plaintiff.
for defendant: William R. Adams, Dickie McCamey & Chilcote, Wilmington, DE; Sean T. Stadelman, Stephen A. Sheinen, Goldberg Segalla LLP, Philadelphia, PA for defendants.
Case Number: 22-76-SRF
Injured decedent's interrogatory responses were admissible under the residual hearsay exception as they were sufficiently trustworthy due to being made under penalty of perjury and were corroborated by other evidence.
Publication Date: 2023-10-23
Practice Area: Personal Injury
Industry: Financial Services and Banking
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Williams
Attorneys: For plaintiff: David Q. Webb, pro se plaintiff.
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-670-GBW
The court dismissed plaintiff's second amended complaint for failure to state a claim under the screening provision where he essentially asserted identical allegations as in the amended complaint and had therefore failed to remedy the deficiencies outlined by the court.
Publication Date: 2023-10-23
Practice Area: Criminal Law
Industry:
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge LeGrow
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Benjamin S. Gifford, IV, The Law Office of Benjamin S. Gifford IV, Wilmington, DE for appellant.
for defendant: Brian L. Arban, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, Wilmington, DE for appellee.
Case Number: 112, 2021
The Delaware Supreme Court held that a postconviction petition will not be mooted by a defendant's completion of his sentence after the petition is filed if the defendant pleads that there are continuing collateral consequences arising from the conviction.
Publication Date: 2023-10-16
Practice Area: Intellectual Property
Industry: E-Commerce | Investments and Investment Advisory | Software
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Connolly
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Comrie Barr Flinn, Alberto E. Chavez, Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor LLP, Wilmington, DE; Mark L. D. Wawro, Max L. Tribble, Susman Godfrey, LLP, Houston, TX; Tamar Lusztig, Susman Godfrey, LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
for defendant: Jack B. Blumenfeld, Alexandra M. Cumings, Ryan D. Stottmann, William M. Lafferty, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael B. Carlinsky, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, NY; Kevin P.B. Johnson, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Redwood Shores, CA; Patrick D. Curran, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Boston, MA for defendants.
Case Number: 23-157-CFC
Defendants could remove case under federal officer removal statute by alleging that it had acquired the right to use plaintiff's intellectual property via federal government contracts after the government allegedly obtained "unlimited right" to the intellectual property.
Publication Date: 2023-10-16
Practice Area: Trademarks
Industry: Electronics | Manufacturing
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Williams
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Stacey A. Scrivani, Stevens & Lee, P.C., Wilmington, DE; Mark H. Anania, Stevens & Lee, P.C., Lawrenceville, NJ; Bobby Ghajar, Cooley LLP, Santa Monica, CA for plaintiff.
for defendant: Timothy Devlin, Clifford Chad Henson, Devlin Law Firm LLC, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: 20-1652-GBW
Finding that defendants had intentionally misled buyers and had made false representations about defendants' association with plaintiff, and that defendants had engaged in a pattern of delay and lack of representation, the court concluded that the case was exceptional both on the merits and because of the unreasonable manner in which defendants had litigated the case.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read