Superior Court of Delaware Court Cases

  1. Outokumpu Engineering Enterprises v. Kepi (1996)

    Defendant Kvaerner EnviroPower, AB [KAB] has moved this Court to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff Outokumpu Engineering Enterprises, Inc. [Outokumpu], brought this action for breach of contract against all three defendants.

    Court: Superior Court of Delaware Docket: 95C-12-080-JOH
  2. Boone v. Oy Partek Ab (1997)

    Michael Evan Jaffe, Jill R. Newman, Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn, Washington, DC, Warren B. Burt, Michael F. Duggan, Warren B. Burt & Associates, Wilmington, DE, for defendant, Oy Partek Ab.

    Court: Superior Court of Delaware Docket: 96C-05-227, 96C-02-127, 96C-03-181, 95C-11-121, 96C-06-218, 96C-07-226, 95C-12-089, 96C-03-193, 96C-03-252, 96C-03-050, 96C-03-180, 96C-06-050, 96C-01-083, 96C-03-049, 96C-03-269, 96C-08-065, 96C-04-251, 96C-03-253, 96C-07-018, 96C-02-125, 96C-02-155, 94C
  3. Oliver B. Cannon & Sons, Inc. v. Dorr-Oliver Inc. (1973)

    In May of 1968, Barcroft Company ("Barcroft") entered into an agreement with Dorr-Oliver Incorporated ("Dorr"), whereby Dorr was to design and construct a plant for the production of magnesium hydroxide paste on Barcroft's site at Lewes, Delaware. Dorr subcontracted out a portion of this project (preparing and painting the interior linings of certain chemical process tanks) to Oliver B. Cannon & Sons, Inc. ("Cannon"), a paint contractor. Pursuant to a purchase order dated June 13, 1969, [...]

    Court: Superior Court of Delaware
  4. Johnson (2014)


    Court: Superior Court of Delaware Docket: 13C-01-119
  5. Guardian Const. v. Tetra Tech Richardson (1990)

    Before the Court is an action filed by Plaintiffs Guardian Construction Company (Guardian) and Stephen Batzel, t/a Batzel Construction Company (Batzel) against Tetra Tech Richardson, Inc. (TTR). Guardian and Batzel seek damages from TTR which together total $203,500 plus interest and costs arising out of a construction project involving the parties herein, the State of Delaware, Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) and Landmark Engineering, Inc. (Landmark).[1]

    Court: Superior Court of Delaware
  6. Edelist v. MBNA America Bank (2001)

    Plaintiff Daniel Edelist has filed an action on his own behalf and a putative class action against MBNA America Bank. The claims arise out of his credit card account and the accounts of others he alleges are similarly situated. He seeks damages for himself and the class for alleged breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation and violation of the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act.

    Court: Superior Court of Delaware Docket: Civ.A. No. 01C-01-195-JOH
  7. Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corporation v. Wolfson (1974)

    These actions arise over claims of Louis Wolfson, Elkin Gerbert, Joseph Kosow and Marshal Staub (claimants) for indemnification by Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corporation (MCS) against expenses incurred in a criminal action. All parties seek summary judgment.

    Court: Superior Court of Delaware
  8. State v. Deputy (1994)

    Defendant Andre Stanley Deputy ("Deputy") filed in this Court on June 17, 1994 a Third Motion for Postconviction Relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 and a Motion for a Stay of Execution. Deputy is scheduled to be executed on June 23, 1994.

    Court: Superior Court of Delaware Docket: IK79-11-0232R3 to IK79-11-0235R3, IK79-03-0011R3 and IK79-03-0013R3
  9. Casson v. Nationwide Ins. Co. (1982)

    This case involves an action for damages arising from the alleged breach of the Personal Injury Protection (P.I.P.) clause of an automobile insurance contract issued by the defendant, Nationwide Insurance Company (Nationwide) to the plaintiff, Mark A. Casson.

    Court: Superior Court of Delaware
  10. Storm v. NSL ROCKLAND PLACE, LLC (2005)

    In this opinion, the Court considers whether an assisted living facility[1] may advance the affirmative defense of primary assumption of the risk in response to a resident's claim that the facility provided negligent or reckless care to him.[2] To the Court's knowledge, the question of whether primary assumption of the risk is a viable defense in the healthcare context has not been decided in Delaware.

    Court: Superior Court of Delaware Docket: C.A. No. 04C-01-210-JRS
  11. Singleton v. International Dairy Queen, Inc. (1975)

    On July 31, 1971, a nine year old girl ("Plaintiff") fell through a glass door of a franchised Dairy Queen operation located at 813 Chestnut Road, Newark, Delaware. The store was owned by W. R. Hesseltine ("Hesseltine"). After purchasing cones of ice cream, the Plaintiff proceeded to the east door of the establishment and apparently without touching the glass, but by pushing on a metal crossbar designed for the purpose of receiving some force to open the door, attempted to leave. The bottom [...]

    Court: Superior Court of Delaware
  12. Minner v. American Mortg. & Guar. Co. (2000)

    Vincent A. Bifferato, Jr., Esquire, Bifferato, Bifferato & Gentilotti, Wilmington, Delaware, John Parker Sweeney, Esquire, and Tara Sky Woodward, Esquire, Miles & Stockbridge, Baltimore, Maryland, Attorneys for Defendants.

    Court: Superior Court of Delaware Docket: C.A. No. 96C-09-263-WTQ
  13. Worgan v. Greggo & Ferrara, Inc. (1956)

    In my first opinion upon this subject, I concluded that the administrator of a viable infant killed by negligence had no right of action against the wrongdoer. A motion for reargument was filed and granted, and after a thorough reexamination of the rapidly growing list of recent decisions to the contrary, I have decided that the weight of modern authority is in favor of such a cause of action.

    Court: Superior Court of Delaware
  14. S&R ASSOCIATES, LP v. Shell Oil Co. (1998)

    Richard K. Herrmann, Mary B. Matterer, Blank, Rome, Comisky & McCauley, LLP, Wilmington, Delaware, Robert J. Kelly, Kelly A. Watters, Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP, Newark, New Jersey, for Defendant Shell Oil Company.

    Court: Superior Court of Delaware Docket: 94C-06-189-WTQ
  15. State v. Ruthardt (1996)

    Ronald Ruthardt was arrested on May 14, 1994, and charged with Driving While Under the Influence, 21 Del.C. § 4177, and various other motor vehicle violations.[1] Before the Court is the State of Delaware's Motion in Limine to Admit Evidence Relating to the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Field Sobriety Test ("HGN"). The State requests the Court to admit HGN for the purpose of determining probable cause and as evidence of impairment and/or intoxication at trial. Because the State's Motion presents [...]

    Court: Superior Court of Delaware Docket: 9405012402
  16. Battista v. Chrysler Corp. (1982)

    The issue presented in this action is whether or not claims of defamation and intentional infliction of mental distress are solely within the ambit of the Delaware Workmen's Compensation Act, thus barring the common law actions filed in this Court by employee Elio Battista ("Employee") against employer Chrysler Corporation ("Chrysler"). In addition to refuting the merits of Employee's tort claims, Chrysler asserts that Employee's exclusive remedy lies in a claim under the Workmen's Compensation [...]

    Court: Superior Court of Delaware
  17. State v. Pennell (1989)

    This case arises from a series of murders of young females during 1987-88. In particular, the defendant is charged with 3 counts of First Degree Murder relating to the deaths of Catherine DiMauro, Shirley Ellis, and Michelle Gordon. Due to the "serial" nature of these murders this case achieved a high degree of publicity. Likewise, law enforcement agencies established a joint task force to investigate these crimes as well as other deaths and disappearances which occurred in the same area during [...]

    Court: Superior Court of Delaware Docket: Reargued After Further Hearing: November 6, 1989
  18. State v. Heath (2006)

    On June 29, 2006, the Court heard testimony regarding the Defendant's Motion to Suppress. Thereafter, the Court received the State's Response to Defendant's Motion and the Defendant's Reply in Support of the Motion. Based on the testimony and the arguments presented, and for the following reasons, the Defendant's motion is GRANTED.

    Court: Superior Court of Delaware Docket: ID No. 0604007616
  19. JA Jones Const. Co. v. City of Dover (1977)

    Daniel F. Wolcott, Jr., of Potter, Anderson & Corroon, Wilmington, for third party defendant Employers Commercial Union Ins. Co. and third party defendant, fourth party plaintiff Chas. E. Brohawn & Bros., Inc.

    Court: Superior Court of Delaware
  20. Guy v. Judicial Nominating Com'n (1995)

    Richard G. Elliott, Jr., and John T. Dorsey, Richards, Layton & Finger, Wilmington, Leo E. Strine, Jr., Office of the Governor, Wilmington, Marsha Kramarck, Deputy Atty. Gen., Wilmington, for defendant.

    Court: Superior Court of Delaware Docket: Civ. A. No. 94M-06-053

1 of 188 Page(s)

  1. 2
  2. 3
  3. 4
  4. 5