The court found that the Chancery Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction because there was an adequate remedy at law for plaintiff's issue.

Failure to read user/instruction manual for product precluded a user injured by the product from pursuing a failure to warn claim.

Defamation claim could proceed where non-actionable opinions asserted or implied facts that could be proven as true or false.

The court held that plaintiffs did not waive their right to bring an action to challenge fiduciary duty breaches allegedly committed in connection with the sale of a company, or for secondary liability claims, because the contract language did not show a clear relinquishment of those rights.

Fair Labor Standards Act claims failed where farm workers fell within the statute's agricultural exemption from the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the act.

The court held that the non-disparagement clause contained in the restrictive covenant agreement between the parties was clearly a restrictive covenant.

The court held that the complaint failed to plead particularized facts demonstrating that demand was futile as to a majority of the demand board members.