• Bako Pathology LP v. Bakotic

    Publication Date: 2022-12-13
    Practice Area: Contractual Disputes
    Industry: Biotechnology
    Court: Delaware Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Valihura
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Mary F. Dugan, Lauren E.M. Russell, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Robert W. Capobianco, Adriana R. Midence, Kelli N. Church, Jackson Lewis P.C., Atlanta, GA for appellants.
    for defendant: Bruce W. McCullough, Bodell Bove, LLC, Wilmington, DE; Salmeh K. Fodor, Kristoffer V. Sargent, KF Law, LLC, Atlanta, GA for appellees.

    Case Number: 382, 2021

    The court affirmed in part and reversed in part a cross-appeal arising out of a corporate litigation claim.

  • Grottenthaler v. SVN Med, LLC

    Publication Date: 2022-12-13
    Practice Area: Employment Litigation
    Industry: Biotechnology | Health Care | Manufacturing
    Court: Delaware Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Butler
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Michael W. McDermott, David B. Anthony, Berger Harris LLP, Wilmington, DE; Bryan J. Wick, Jack Lilley, Wick Phillips Gould & Martin, LLP, Dallas TX for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Blake Rohrbacher, Samuel J. Gray, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Matthew Messerli, The Messerli Law Firm, Trophy Club, TX for defendant.

    Case Number: N21C-12-131 CEB

    Suit for wages and severance pay was not dismissed where employer identified no condition precedent to terminated employee's right to receive wages, and where there were outstanding issues of material fact concerning whether employer had materially breached the parties' contract, entitling employee to receive separation pay.

  • State v. Galindez

    Publication Date: 2022-12-13
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Delaware Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Rennie
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 1712008053

    Motion for postconviction relief failed where defendant could not show that newly discovered eyewitness with testimony supporting a claim of self-defense would have altered the outcome of the trial as such testimony did not establish defendant's actual innocence, particularly where the testimony could not explain why defendant continued to use force and robbed the victim.

  • Tolliver v. Qlarant Quality Solutions, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2022-12-06
    Practice Area: Employment Litigation
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: Delaware Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Primos
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: M. Denise Tolliver, Camden, DE, pro se plaintiff.
    for defendant: Tiffany R. Hubbard, Pamela Moore, McCarter & English, LLP, Hartford, CT; Chelsea A. Botsch, McCarter & English, LLP, Wilmington, Delaware for defendants.

    Case Number: K21C-06-040 NEP

    The court found for defendant corporation in an employment litigation sounding in discrimination and defamation claims.

  • Freeman v. Carter

    Publication Date: 2022-11-29
    Practice Area: Legal Malpractice
    Industry: Legal Services | Real Estate
    Court: Delaware Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Davis
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Melissa Freeman, D. Robert Freeman, appellants pro se.
    for defendant: Jeffrey M. Weiner, The Law Offices of Jeffrey M. Weiner, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Donald L. Gouge, Jr., Wilmington, DE, attorneys for appellees.

    Case Number: N21C-09-081 EMD

    Contract and indemnification claims against real estate attorney failed where there was no evidence indicating the existence of a contractual or attorney-client relationship between the attorney and sellers, as the attorney expressly advised sellers that she was representing the buyers.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Bucks County Court Rules 2023

    Authors:

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Revolution Rentals DE, LLC v. Pomerleau

    Publication Date: 2022-11-22
    Practice Area: Civil Procedure
    Industry:
    Court: Delaware Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Primos
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Catherine Di Lorenzo, Stern & Eisenberg Mid-Atlantic, PC, Newark, DE for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Donald L. Gouge, Jr., Donald L. Gouge, Jr., LLC, Wilmington, DE for defendants.

    Case Number: K21C-08-007 NEP

    Failure to timely effect a transfer of an action from justice of the peace court to superior court required dismissal of the case with prejudice pursuant to the terms of the justice of the peace court's order.

  • Estate of Barotz v. Vida Longevity Fund., L.P.

    Publication Date: 2022-11-22
    Practice Area: Insurance Law
    Industry: Insurance
    Court: Delaware Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Davis
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Donald L. Gouge, Jr., Donald L. Gouge, Jr., LLC, Wilmington, DE; Joseph M. Kelleher, Cozen O’Connor, Philadelphia, PA for plaintiff.
    for defendant: David P. Primack, McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Eric A. Biderman, James M. Westerlind, Julius A. Rousseau Arent Fox LLP, New York, NY for defendant.

    Case Number: N20C-05-144 EMD CCLD

    The court granted plaintiff estate's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that defendant corporation was not entitled to collect decedent's life insurance proceeds because under 18 Del. C. §2704, the insurance policy was void due to lack of an insurable interest.

  • Pedicone v. Thompson/Center Arms Co.

    Publication Date: 2022-11-22
    Practice Area: Products Liability
    Industry: Manufacturing
    Court: Delaware Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Carpenter
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Joseph J. Rhoades, Stephen T. Morrow, Rhoades & Morrow LLC, Wilmington, DE; Michael A. Trunk, Thomas E. Bosworth, Kline & Spector, P.C., Philadelphia, PA for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Timothy Jay Houseal, Jennifer M. Kinkus, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Anthony M. Pisciotti, Danny C. Lallis, Pisciotti Lallis Erdreich, Florham Park, NJ for defendants.

    Case Number: N17C-11-264 WCC

    Court correctly precluded plaintiffs' expert from testifying that a new weapon design was evidence of an alternative feasible design for a prior version of the weapon designed decades ago since such evidence would ignore the normal progress of technological development.

  • AmeriMark Interactive, LLC v. AmeriMark Holdings, LLC

    Publication Date: 2022-11-15
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Retail
    Court: Delaware Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Johnston
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Andrew L. Cole, Jack M. Dougherty, Cole Schotz, P.C., Wilmington, DE; Steven L. Klepper, Brendan P. Barry, Cole Schotz, P.C., Hackensack, NJ for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Patricia R. Urban, Megan I. Brison, Pinckney, Weidinger, Urgan & Joyce LLC, Wilmington, DE; Eric B. Fisher, Sarah Dowd, Binder & Schwartz LLP, New York, NY; Anna E. Currier, James G. Gorman III, Blank Rome LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jason A. Snyderman, Charles A. Fitzpatrick, Blank Rome LLP, Philadelphia, PA; Shawna J. Henry, Blank Rome, Pittsburgh, PA for defendants.

    Case Number: N21C-12-175 MMJ CCLD

    Anti-reliance/non-recourse provisions of purchase agreement did not bar fraud claims against non-signatories where plaintiff sufficiently alleged that those parties were complicit in the contracting party's misrepresentations.

  • Kirby v. The Kent County Bd. of Adjustment

    Publication Date: 2022-11-08
    Practice Area: Administrative Law
    Industry:
    Court: Delaware Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Primos
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: John W. Paradee, Stephen A. Spence, Brian V. Demott, Mackenzie M. Peet, Baird Mandalas Brockstedt, LLC, Dover, DE for appellant.
    for defendant: Frederick A. Townsend, III, Hudson, Jones, Jaywork & Fisher, Dover, DE; Craig T. Eliassen, Schmittinger & Rodriguez, P.A., Dover, DE for appellee.

    Case Number: K22A-02-003 NEP

    Court reversed the decision of the county's zoning board finding that their denial of an application to construct an "accessory cottage," was inconsistent with the plain and unambiguous meaning of the zoning code. Although the zoning board argued that the application should be denied because it would require the construction of a new building rather than an addition to an already existing outbuilding, the court noted that this was inconsistent with the code which made no mention of whether an outbuilding could be constructed to qualif