Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
570 results for '* topic:"Contracts"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2024-05-13
Practice Area: Contracts
Industry: Manufacturing | Pharmaceuticals
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Judge: Judge Davis
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Jesse L. Noa, P. Andrew Smith, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Scott W. Atherton, Terence M. Mullen, Atherton Galardi Mullen & Reeder PLLC, West Palm Beach, FL for plaintiff.
for defendant: Brian E. Farnan, Michael J. Farnan, Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE; Julia Chapman, Stefanie A. Tubbs, Forrest E. Lovett, Dechert LLP, Philadelphia, PA for defendant.
Case Number: N22C-06-078-EMD CCLD
Court denied claim for contract reformation based on mistake where claimant merely sought to revise an unfavorable deal, although reformation was only meant to fix written contracts that failed to comport with the parties' mutual understanding of their agreement.
Publication Date: 2024-04-22
Practice Area: Contracts
Industry: Pharmaceuticals
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Judge: Judge Medinilla
Attorneys: For plaintiff: John A. Sensing, Andrew M. Moshos, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
for defendant: Dominick T. Gattuso, Elizabeth A. DeFelice, Wilmington, DE for defendant.
Case Number: N23C-09-062 VLM CCLD
Tortious interference claim against parent corporation failed where plaintiff failed to allege facts supporting an inference that parent acted to maliciously harm plaintiff or was knowingly acting outside its subsidiary's economic interests.
Publication Date: 2024-04-15
Practice Area: Contracts
Industry: Construction | Real Estate
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Zurn
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Nathan D. Barillo, Fox Rothschild LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Edward J. Fornias, III, Law Office of EJ Fornias, P.A., Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: 2020-0745-MTZ
Court declined to enforce a settlement against defendants' affiliates who were non-parties to the underlying action, as Ct. Ch. R. 71 could not supply an independent basis to extend jurisdiction over non-parties in the absence of due process.
Publication Date: 2024-03-26
Practice Area: Contracts
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Real Estate
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Judge Ambro
Attorneys: For plaintiff: John Bash, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Austin, TX; Daniel C. Posner, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Eric W. Pinker, Lynn Pinker Hurst & Schwegmann, LLP, Dallas, TX; Ricardo Palacio, Ashby & Geddes, P.A., Wilmington, DE for appellants.
for defendant: Nicole A. Saharsky, Minh Nguyen-Dang, Mayer Brown LLP, Washington, DC; Michael P. Lennon, Charles S. Kelley, Jr., Susan L. Alkadri, Mayer Brown LLP, Houston, TX; Bryan J. Hall, Chipman Brown Cicero & Cole, Wilmington, DE; Jeffrey M. Scott, Archer & Greiner, P.C., Philadelphia, PA for appellee.
Case Number: 22-3019
Original tenant could not be held liable under assigned lease which was amended by the landlord and assignee without the original tenant's knowledge or consent.
Publication Date: 2024-02-26
Practice Area: Contracts
Industry: Consulting | Entertainment and Leisure | Retail
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Burke
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Joseph L. Christensen, Christensen & Dougherty LLP, Wilmington, DE; Edward Totino, Nancy Nguyen Sims, Michael T. Boardman, Baker & McKenzie LLP, Los Angeles, CA for plaintiff.
for defendant: John M. Seaman, E. Wade Houston, Christopher Fitzpatrick Cannataro, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE; Trey Cox, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Dallas, TX for defendant.
Case Number: 22-363-CJB
Court granted partial dismissal of breach of contract claim where parties reached written agreement on only one set of figures for three of their projects, meaning the parties had not reached a complete written agreement.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors:
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2024-02-12
Practice Area: Contracts
Industry: Aerospace | Investments and Investment Advisory | Manufacturing
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Judge: Judge Davis
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Dominick T. Gattuso, Elizabeth A. DeFelice, Gillian L. Andrews, Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jonathan K. Cooperman, Kelly Drye & Warren LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
for defendant: Joseph L. Christensen, Christensen & Dougherty LLP, Wilmington, DE; Perrie M. Weiner, Baker & McKenzie, LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Peter P. Tomczak, Michael D. Lehrman, Baker & McKenzie LLP, Chicago, IL for defendant.
Case Number: N22C-07-133 EMD CCLD
Court declined to resolve breach of contract claim on summary judgment where parties had material factual disputes over the contractual conditions precedent to payment.
Publication Date: 2024-02-12
Practice Area: Contracts
Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Consulting | Consumer Products
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Judge: Judge Adams
Attorneys: For plaintiff: John P. DiTomo, Alexandra M. Cumings, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
for defendant: R. Bruce McNew, R. Grant Dick IV, Andrew A. Ralli, Cooch and Taylor P.A., Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: N23C-03-032 MAA CCLD
Amendment to contract purporting to "accelerate" past due payments lacked consideration where defendant was already making payments.
Publication Date: 2024-02-12
Practice Area: Contracts
Industry: Financial Services and Banking
Court: Delaware Supreme Court
Judge: Justice Traynor
Attorneys: For plaintiff: C. Barr Flinn, Paul J. Loughman, Alberto E. Chávez, Skyler A. C. Speed, Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; David A. Paul, Virginia J. Cardenas, Sid Nadkarni, Cantor Fitzgerald, New York, NY; Benjamin R. Nagin, Eric G. Hoffman, Sidley Austin LLP, New York, NY; Tacy F. Flint, Frank J. Favia, Jr., Sidley Austin LLP, Chicago, IL for appellant.
for defendant: Blake A. Bennett, Cooch & Taylor P.A., Wilmington, DE; Kyle W. Roche, Kyle Roche P.A., New York, NY; Velvel Freedman, Alex Potter, Freedman Normand Friedland LLP, New York, NY for appellees.
Case Number: 162, 2023
A "forfeiture-for-competition" provision in a partnership agreement did not qualify as a restraint on trade, and thus partners who had negotiated and benefitted from such a term would be held to the terms of their agreement due to the Delaware Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act's express favor for the enforceability of contracts.
Publication Date: 2023-10-09
Practice Area: Contracts
Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Federal Government
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Williams
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Joseph B. Cicero, Gregory E. Stuhlman, Thomas A. Youngman, Chipman Brown Cicero & Cole, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Casey B. Howard, Jeffery S. Kramer, Locke Lord LLP., New York, NY for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Patricia L. Enerio, Gillian L. Andrews, Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael R. Tein, Gaye L. Huxoll, Tein Malone PLLC, Coconut Grove, FL for defendants.
Case Number: 22-cv-01255-GBW
Dismissal of breach of contract claim denied where plaintiffs alleged sufficient facts to support inference that defendant was the mere continuance or assignee of plaintiffs' contractual counterparty.
Publication Date: 2023-09-25
Practice Area: Contracts
Industry: Education
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Judge Krause
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Edward W. Ciolko, Nicholas Colella, Jamisen A. Etzel, Gary F. Lynch, Lynch Carpenter, Pittsburgh, PA; Jeffrey A. Klafter, Seth R. Lesser, Klafter Lesser, Rye Brook, NY; Eric Poulin, Poulin, Willey & Anastopoulo, Charleston, SC; Roy T. Willey, IV, Anastopoulo Law Firm, Charleston, SC; Stuart A. Carpey, Plymouth Meeting, PA for appellants.
for defendant: James C. Martin, Colin E. Wrabley, Reed Smith, Pittsburgh, PA; Gerard A. Dever, Roberta D. Liebenberg, Fine Kaplan & Black, Philadelphia, PA; Burt M. Rublin, Ballard Spahr, Philadelphia, PA for appellees.
Case Number: 21-2013
Former students' allegations that the universities had retained their tuition and fees in full after transitioning to remote learning and canceling campus events during the pandemic supported a reasonable inference that the parties had impliedly contracted for in-person education and supported a claim for unjust enrichment.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read