Filter This View

  • Alarm.com Holdings, Inc. v. ABS Capital Partners, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-06-27
    Practice Area: Contracts | Intellectual Property
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Philip A. Rovner, Jonathan A. Choa, and Alan R. Silverstein, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE, attorneys for plaintiff
    for defendant: Raymond J. DiCamillo, Chad M. Shandler, Matthew W. Murphy, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Steven F. Barley, Andrea W. Trento, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Baltimore, MD, attorneys for defendants.
    Case Number: D68190

    Misappropriation claim failed where only circumstantial evidence involved defendant's investment in competing business, an act it was permitted to do under the parties' agreements.

  • Edinburgh Holdings, Inc. v. Educ. Affiliates, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-06-20
    Practice Area: Contracts | Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Education
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Slights
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Ryan P. Newell and Kyle Evans Gay, Connolly Gallagher LLP, Wilmington, DE; Lee M. Whitman and Samuel A. Slater, Wyrick Robbins Yates & Ponton LLP, Raleigh, NC, attorneys for plaintiff
    for defendant: Douglas D. Herrmann and Christopher B. Chuff, Pepper Hamilton LLP, Wilmington, DE, attorneys for defendants.
    Case Number: D68183

    Breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraudulent inducement, and breach of fiduciary duty claims dismissed as improperly duplicative of breach of contract claim where alleged implied covenants, fiduciary duties, and fraudulent inducement solely involved opposing party's contractual obligations.

  • WNYH, LLC v. AccuMED Corp.

    Publication Date: 2018-06-13
    Practice Area: Contracts | Deals and Transactions
    Industry: Biotechnology
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Kevin G. Abrams, Matthew L. Miller, Christopher R. Rodi and Brian J. Capitummino for plaintiff
    for defendant: Gregory v. Varallo and Susan M. Hannigan for defendants.
    Case Number: D68181

    The parties to a sale agreement did not condition the transaction on tax-free status, so the seller did not have a breach of contract claim against the buyer, but the court refused to dismiss a claim relating to an escrow ac-count, because the parties' escrow settlement agreement was ambiguous.

  • Negron v. Geico Secure Ins. Co.

    Publication Date: 2018-06-13
    Practice Area: Contracts | Insurance Law
    Industry: Insurance
    Court: Delaware Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Davis
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: D68178

    Plaintiff could seek to recover under the uninsured motorist provision of an insurance policy for injuries she sustained from gunshot wounds inflicted while she was driving, but the complaint did not adequately allege that the other vehicle was uninsured.

  • Black Diamond Hope House, Inc. v. U & I Invs., LLC

    Publication Date: 2018-06-06
    Practice Area: Civil Procedure | Contracts
    Industry: Construction
    Court: Delaware Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Clark
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Charles J. Brown, III, Gellert, Scali, Busenkell & Brown, LLC, Wilmington, DE, attorney for plaintiffs
    for defendant: Robert D. Cecil, Jr., Tybout, Redfearn & Pell, Wilmington, DE; Michael I. Silverman, Silverman, McDonald & Friedman, Wilmington, DE; Paul Cottrell and Patrick McGrory, Tighe & Cottrell, P.A., Wilmington, DE, attorneys for defendants.
    Case Number: D68167

    Claims arising from construction defects barred by statute of limitations where parties' contract defined accrual date as date of substantial completion of project and barred application of the discovery rule.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Georgia Legal Malpractice Law 2024

    Authors: SHARI L. KLEVENS, ALANNA G. CLAIR

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Cavi v. Evolving Sys. NC, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-06-06
    Practice Area: Contracts | Employment Litigation
    Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Sean A. Meluney and Alan L. Frank for plaintiff
    for defendant: Herbert W. Mondros, Diane M. Coffey, Paul N. Silverstein and Brian M. Clark for defendants.
    Case Number: D68169

    Plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to support his tort and quasi-contract claims, but he was not entitled to recover for breach of good faith and fair dealing.

  • State ex rel. French v. Card Complaint, LLC

    Publication Date: 2018-05-16
    Practice Area: Business Torts | Contracts
    Industry:
    Court: Delaware Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Wallace
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Thomas E. Brown, Edward K. Black and Stephen G. MacDonald for the state
    for defendant: Stuart M. Grant, Mary S. Thomas, Laina M. Herbert and Vivek Upadhya for relator French; Stephen E. Jenkins, Catherine A. Gaul, Richard M. Zuckerman, Sean Cenawood, Kiran Patel and Catharine Luo for Card Compliant defendants; Kenneth J. Na-chbar, Michael Houghton, Matthew R. Clark, Barnaby Grzaslewicz, Ethan D. Millar, J. Andrew Howard, William R. Mitchel-son, Jr., Jason D. Popp, Colm F. Connolly, Jody C. Barillare, Gregory T. Parks, Courtney McCormick, David S. Eagle, Michael W. Yurkewicz, Martin I. Einstein, David Swetnam-Burland, Stacy O.Stitham, Brian M. Rostocki, Benjamin P. Chapple, Mi-chael J. Wynne, David A. Rammelt, Brian E. Farnan, Shawn J. Organ and Joshua M. Feasel for additional defendants.
    Case Number: D68148

    Factual issues prevented summary judgment in this false claims matter, and defendants failed to establish extraordinary circumstances for disregarding the law of the case.

  • Jackson v. Nocks

    Publication Date: 2018-05-09
    Practice Area: Contracts
    Industry:
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Montgomery-Reeves
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Tiffany M. Shrenk, Macelree Harvey, Ltd., Centerville, DE, attorneys for plaintiff
    for defendant: Seth L. Thompson, The Yeager Law Firm LLC, Wilmington, DE, attorneys for defendant.
    Case Number: D68136

    Breach of partnership or contract or promissory estoppel claims failed for lack of agreement or promise to share in costs, losses, and profits, but damages under unjust enrichment warranted where plaintiff made all expenditures on asset intended to be mutually enjoyed.

  • Goddard Sys., Inc. v. Gondal

    Publication Date: 2018-05-02
    Practice Area: Contracts | Trademarks
    Industry: Education
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Burke
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Douglas E. McCann and Jeremy D. Anderson, Fish & Richardson, P.C., Wilmington, DE; Dean T. Fournaris, John M. Doroghazi, and Jacob A. Sand, Wiggin and Dana LLP, Philadelphia, PA, attorneys for plaintiff
    for defendant: Gary E. Junge, Schmittinger & Rodriguez, P.A., Newark, DE; Christopher P. Coval, Fenningham, Dempster & Coval, LLP, Trevose, PA, attorneys for defendants.
    Case Number: D68119

    Preliminary injunction denied where plaintiff had not proven defendants likely breach of non-compete covenants would continue or could not be fully remedied through monetary damages.

  • Goddard Sys., Inc. v. Gondal

    Publication Date: 2018-04-25
    Practice Area: Contracts | Trademarks
    Industry: Education
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Burke
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Douglas E. McCann and Jeremy D. Anderson, Fish & Richardson, P.C., Wilmington, DE; Dean T. Fournaris, John M. Doroghazi, and Jacob A. Sand, Wiggin and Dana LLP, Philadelphia, PA, attorneys for plaintiff
    for defendant: Gary E. Junge, Schmittinger & Rodriguez, P.A., Newark, DE; Christopher P. Coval, Fenningham, Dempster & Coval, LLP, Trevose, PA, attorneys for defendants.
    Case Number: D68119

    Preliminary injunction denied where plaintiff had not proven defendants likely breach of non-compete covenants would continue or could not be fully remedied through monetary damages.