Rules of the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Compulsory Counterclaim Committee
Report of Boyd-Graves Conference Compulsory Counterclaim Committee Members of the Committee to Study a Proposal to Adopt a Compulsory Counterclaim Rule are Stuart Raphael, Ham Bryson, Bob Mitchell, David Anthony, Jack Costello, Kent Sinclair, Lisa O’Donnell, Bill Mims, and Robin Wood, Chairman. The Committee has met thrice by conference call: on March 25, 2008, April 30, 2008, and May 22, 2008. In the initial conference the Chairman polled members of the Committee to determine if there was a consensus among members of the Committee in favor of a compulsory counterclaim. Seven members of the Committee said they were in favor of a compulsory counterclaim, and two members of the Committee expressed reservations about a compulsory counterclaim rule. In response to an inquiry about a compulsory counterclaim rule in other states, Kent thought that over 40 states had adopted a compulsory counterclaim rule. The Chairman asked members to state their reasons for their position. Those members who were in favor of the rule felt that it was good public policy for all claims arising out of the same transaction or occurrence to be joined in one action. A compulsory counterclaim rule promotes judicial economy and efficiency. Under Rule 1:6, the plaintiff is required to join all claims that arise out of an identified conduct, transaction or occurrence, or later be barred from bringing a second or subsequent action against the same opposing party (parties) arising out the same conduct, transaction or occurrence. The adoption of a compulsory counterclaim rule would require the opposing party to state a claim arising out of the conduct identified in the complaint, crossclaim, or third party claim. -
THE ORIGINS of the ACTION of TRESPASS on the CASE ELIZABETH JEAN Dixt
THE ORIGINS OF THE ACTION OF TRESPASS ON THE CASE ELIZABETH JEAN DIXt \\ITHINT THE last decade the origins of the action of trespass on the case have become a controversial subject arousing interest among lawyers and historians as well as among those more specialized hybrids, legal historians. At the beginning of this century no one questioned the theory of the origins of the action proposed by Ames, Holmes, Holdsworth, Salmond and others.' It was generally believed by these writers that the action of trespass on the case was a direct derivative from the well known in consimili casu clause of Edward I's Statute of 1285, West- minster II, chapter 24. Behind this belief was the support of older writers, Chitty, Reeves, Stephen and Blackstone,2 confirming beyond doubt the relationship between the action of case and Westminster II. In the course of the last thirty years, however, attention has been directed to flaws in the generally accepted theory of the origin of case. The objections were strongly voiced several years ago by Mr. Theodore F. T. Plucknett, who concluded from his study that the background, content and results of the Statute of Westminster II, and particularly of the in consimili casu clause, indicated that the action of case had no connection with the Statute.' There are two sides to the present controversy: one is represented by Mr. Plucknett himself; the other is represented by Sir William Holds- worth4 and his associate at Oxford, Mr. P. A. Landon.5 In support I Ph.D., Yale University, 1936. This article is part of a dissertation presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Yale University, June, 1936. -
The Shadow Rules of Joinder
Brooklyn Law School BrooklynWorks Faculty Scholarship 2012 The hS adow Rules of Joinder Robin Effron Brooklyn Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/faculty Part of the Other Law Commons Recommended Citation 100 Geo. L. J. 759 (2011-2012) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by BrooklynWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of BrooklynWorks. The Shadow Rules of Joinder ROBIN J. EFFRON* The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide litigants with procedural devices for joining claims and parties. Several of these rules demand that the claims or parties share a baseline of commonality, either in the form of the same "transactionor occurrence" or a "common question of law or fact." Both phrases have proved to be notoriously tricky in application.Commentators from the academy and the judiciary have attributed these difficulties to the context- specific and discretionary nature of the rules. This Article challenges that wisdom by suggesting that the doctrinal confu- sion can be attributed to deeper theoretical divisions in the judiciary, particu- larly with regardto the role of the ontological categories of "fact" and "law." These theoretical divisions have led lower courtjudges to craft shadow rules of joinder "Redescription" is the rule by which judges utilize a perceived law-fact distinction to characterizea set of facts as falling inside or outside a definition of commonality. "Impliedpredominance" is the rule in which judges have taken the Rule 23(b)(3) class action standard that common questions predominate over individual issues and applied it to other rules of joinder that do not have this express requirement. -
The New Federal Rules of Procedure As Compared with the Former Federal Equity Rules and the Wisconsin Code, 23 Marq
Marquette Law Review Volume 23 Article 2 Issue 4 June 1939 The ewN Federal Rules of Procedure as Compared with the Former Federal Equity Rules and the Wisconsin Code Daniel C. Hopkinson Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr Part of the Law Commons Repository Citation Daniel C. Hopkinson, The New Federal Rules of Procedure as Compared with the Former Federal Equity Rules and the Wisconsin Code, 23 Marq. L. Rev. 159 (1939). Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol23/iss4/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Marquette Law Review by an authorized administrator of Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE NEW FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE COMPARED WITH THE FORMER FEDERAL EQUITY RULES AND THE WISCONSIN CODE DANIEL K HOPIINSON T OA considerable extent, the practice under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is the same as the practice under the Federal Equity Rules and the Wisconsin Code. There are, however, a great many minor and a few substantial differences. The lawyer who has tried suits in equity in the federal courts will be interested in knowing to what extent the practice under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure conforms to the practice under the former Federal Equity Rules. The lawyer who has engaged in litigation in the Wisconsin courts or who has tried actions at law in the federal district courts in Wisconsin will examine the new federal rules with a view to determining the devia- tion from the Wisconsin practice. -
United States District Court Eastern District of Kentucky Lexington Division
Case: 5:05-cv-00137-JBC-JBT Doc #: 13 Filed: 10/11/05 Page: 1 of 5 - Page ID#: <pageID> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LEXINGTON DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-137-JBC EAST KENTUCKY POWER COOPERATIVE, INC., PLAINTIFF, V. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GREENWICH INSURANCE COMPANY, DEFENDANT. * * * * * * * * * * * This matter is before the court on the motion of the defendant, Greenwich Insurance Company (“Greenwich”), for leave to file a third party complaint (DE 4), and on the motion of Lexington Coal Company (“LCC”) to intervene and transfer to Bankruptcy Court (DE 7, 8). The court construes the plaintiff’s responses as motions to remand (DE 5, 9). The court, having reviewed the record and being otherwise sufficiently advised, will grant Greenwich’s motion, will reserve ruling on LCC’s motion, and will deny the plaintiff’s motion. Background and procedural history Plaintiff, East Kentucky Power Cooperative (“EKPC”), is a resident of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. It filed a complaint in Clark County Circuit Court against Greenwich, a foreign company, alleging breach of contract and breach of a covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Greenwich removed the case to this court invoking diversity jurisdiction and now seeks to implead LCC and interplead LCC and EKPC. EKPC objects to neither procedural device. However, it is concerned that the impleader of LCC, also a Kentucky resident, will destroy this court’s diversity Case: 5:05-cv-00137-JBC-JBT Doc #: 13 Filed: 10/11/05 Page: 2 of 5 - Page ID#: <pageID> jurisdiction. Analysis Greenwich’s motion for leave to file a third-party complaint Impleader is proper under Rule 14 where a third party may be liable to a defendant for all or part of a plaintiff’s claim. -
In the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia Roanoke Division
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION HARTFORD LIFE AND ACCIDENT ) INSURANCE COMPANY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. 7:11cv411 ) v. ) ) CHARLES PATRICK KING, et al., ) By: Michael F. Urbanski ) United States District Judge Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION In this insurance interpleader case, plaintiff Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company (“Hartford”) asks the court to grant its motion for summary judgment, dismiss it from this action, and award it attorney’s fees and costs. (Dkt. #15.) Defendant Charles P. King asks the court to grant his motions for default judgment and for summary judgment, ordering payment of the proceeds of the subject insurance policies to him. (Dkt. #s 17, 21.) For the reasons stated herein, all of these motions are DENIED at this time. I. On August 26, 2011, Hartford filed a Complaint for Interpleader against Charles P. King, Joan E. Gnegy, and the Estate of Ann Gnegy King (“the Estate”), pursuant to Rule 22(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as stakeholder of the proceeds of two group insurance policies as a consequence of the death of Ann Gnegy King. The complaint alleges that the benefits payable under each of these insurance policies exceeds $75,000 and that the court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case on both federal question and diversity of citizenship bases.1 Hartford requested and was granted leave to deposit with the court the $76,000 payable under the life policy, plus interest, and the $76,500 payable under the AD&D policy. (Dkt. #s 2, 5, 9.) The complaint alleges that Ann Gnegy King was killed on April 29, 2009, while inside her home. -
Are the Torts of Trespass to the Person Obsolete? Part 1: Historical Development Dr Christine Beuermann*
Are the Torts of Trespass to the Person Obsolete? Part 1: Historical Development Dr Christine Beuermann* This article re-examines the liability currently imposed by the courts for trespass to the person. It demonstrates that the process for imposing such liability has evolved so that the courts now both carefully scrutinise how the defendant engaged in the conduct which interfered with the plaintiff’s personal security and finely balance a range of competing interests. To the extent that the process for imposing liability for trespass to the person is not dissimilar to the process for imposing liability in the tort of negligence, this article questions whether the torts of trespass to the person might now be viewed as obsolete. The article is in two parts. Part one examines the historical development of trespass to the person. Part two (to be published separately) explores whether it is possible to identify anything distinctive about the process for determining liability in trespass to the person (as it has continued to evolve) when compared with the process for determining liability in negligence. INTRODUCTION The individual torts comprising trespass to the person – battery, assault and false imprisonment – can be traced to the medieval writ system. Significant questions persist, however, as to the nature of the liability imposed in respect of the torts and the circumstances in which such liability is imposed. Is the liability imposed by reason of the defendant’s wrongdoing1 or regardless of the defendant’s wrongdoing and therefore strict?2 -
Contract, Tort Or Obligations in the South Pacific?
UCLA UCLA Pacific Basin Law Journal Title "Seductive Company": Contract, Tort or Obligations in the South Pacific? Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/95m0832d Journal UCLA Pacific Basin Law Journal, 19(1) Authors Farran, Sue Care, Jennifer Corrin Publication Date 2001 DOI 10.5070/P8191022147 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California "SEDUCTIVE COMPANY": CONTRACT, TORT OR OBLIGATIONS IN THE SOUTH PACIFIC? Sue Farran and Jennifer Corrin Care* INTRODUCTION In jurisdictions which have inherited the English common law, there increasingly appear to be areas of contract law which overlap with the law of torts; where clear distinction is more a matter of academic debate than practical application, and where it might well be asked, as long as a just solution is reached does it matter whether the solution is by way of tort or contract. This is particularly so in the case of liability for negligent advice or in- formation resulting in economic loss. Here, the relationship be- tween the parties might well be one of contract and often, but not always, in circumstances where one party is relying on the exper- tise or professional skill of the other. Implied into the contract, but generally not stipulated, is the idea that the expert or profes- sional will conduct themselves in accordance with the standards generally associated with that profession or expertise. Where the expected standard is not met and loss results, there is the ques- tion not so much of who is liable, but on what grounds should liability be imposed? Where the damage is physical, an action will lie in tort, even if there is no contract, for example, where a surgeon is not employed by the patient but by the State, or where a builder contracts with the previous but not current owner of the building. -
"This Court Doth Keep All England in Quiet": Star Chamber and Public Expression in Prerevolutionary England, 1625–1641 Nathaniel A
Clemson University TigerPrints All Theses Theses 8-2018 "This Court Doth Keep All England in Quiet": Star Chamber and Public Expression in Prerevolutionary England, 1625–1641 Nathaniel A. Earle Clemson University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_theses Recommended Citation Earle, Nathaniel A., ""This Court Doth Keep All England in Quiet": Star Chamber and Public Expression in Prerevolutionary England, 1625–1641" (2018). All Theses. 2950. https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_theses/2950 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses at TigerPrints. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Theses by an authorized administrator of TigerPrints. For more information, please contact [email protected]. "THIS COURT DOTH KEEP ALL ENGLAND IN QUIET" STAR CHAMBER AND PUBLIC EXPRESSION IN PREREVOLUTIONARY ENGLAND 1625–1641 A Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of Clemson University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts History by Nathaniel A. Earle August 2018 Accepted by: Dr. Caroline Dunn, Committee Chair Dr. Alan Grubb Dr. Lee Morrissey ABSTRACT The abrupt legislative destruction of the Court of Star Chamber in the summer of 1641 is generally understood as a reaction against the perceived abuses of prerogative government during the decade of Charles I’s personal rule. The conception of the court as an ‘extra-legal’ tribunal (or as a legitimate court that had exceeded its jurisdictional mandate) emerges from the constitutional debate about the limits of executive authority that played out over in Parliament, in the press, in the pulpit, in the courts, and on the battlefields of seventeenth-century England. -
Download Download
What's Wrong With Restitution? 221 What's Wrong With Restitution? David Stevens' and Jason W. Neyers" The law of restitution has developed out of the law Le droit en matiere de restitution emane du droit of quasi-contract and the law of constructive trust. du quasi-contrat et du droit de la ftducie Inadequate attention to the logic and coherence of d'interpretation. Mais I'attention insufftsante doctrines in the law of restitution, however, renders accordie a la logtque et a la cohirence des this new law as opaque and confused as its doctrines du droit en matiere de restitution rend ce predecessor. This is largely due to the remedial nouveau droit aussi opaque etfiou que le pricident, mentality of the common law. The remedy to the ce qui est largement altribuable a la mentaliti remedial mentality is to concentrate future efforts in remediatrice du common law. Lafafon de contrer stating doctrine on defining rights, not remedies. celte mentaliti est d'axer les efforts futurs de The precedent for this type of change in method is definition de la doctrine sur la definition des droits the transformation that occurred in contract and et non des reparations. Ce changement dans la tort over the past 100 years, inspired, in part, by facon de prodder a son origine dans la civilian theories of private law. transformation survenue dans le droit contractuel et The right that generates the remedy restitution is le droit de la responsabilile' delictuelle au cours des the cause of action in unjust enrichment. It arises cent dernieres annies, et inspires, en parlie, des where there has been a non-consensual receipt and theories civiles de droit prive. -
Delaware Chancery Court Review
State of Connecticut Judicial Branch Court Operations Unit Quality Assurance, Performance Measures & Statistics Joseph Greelish, Deputy Director (phone) 860-263-2734 (fax) 860-263-2773 Delaware Chancery Court Review “The arbiter of corporate conflicts and fiduciary disputes and equity matters, all under the mantle of "institutionalized fairness". -Sam Glasscock, Vice Chancellor Delaware Chancery Court Background and Jurisdiction • Delaware created its Court of Chancery in 1792 bucking a national trend away from Chancery Courts. • Article IV, Section 10 of the Delaware Constitution establishes the Court and provides that it "shall have all the jurisdiction and powers vested by the laws of this State in the Court of Chancery." The Court has one Chancellor, who is the chief judicial officer of the Court, and four Vice Chancellors. It also has two Masters in Chancery, who are assigned by the Chancellor and Vice Chancellors to assist in matters as needed. • The Court of Chancery has jurisdiction to hear all matters relating to equity. o The Court cannot grant relief in the form of money damages to compensate a party for a loss or where another court has coterminous jurisdiction. o However, under the rules of equity, the court can grant monetary relief in the form of restitution by ruling that another party has unjustly gained money that belongs to the plaintiff. • Apart from its general equitable jurisdiction, the Court has jurisdiction over a number of other matters. The Court has sole power to appoint guardians of the property and person for mentally or physically disabled Delaware residents. Similarly, the Court may also appoint guardians for minors, although the Family Court has coterminous jurisdiction over such matters. -
Indiana Commercial Courts Handbook
INDIANA COMMERCIAL COURTS HANDBOOK Modified July 20, 2020 Table of Contents BACKGROUND OF THE INDIANA COMMERCIAL COURTS .....................4 1. HANDBOOK DEVELOPMENT............................................................................................................ 5 2. HISTORY OF THE INDIANA COMMERCIAL COURT ................................................................................. 6 3. ORDER ESTABLISHING THE INDIANA COMMERCIAL COURT PILOT PROJECT ............................................. 10 4. ORDER ESTABLISHING THE INDIANA COMMERCIAL COURT .................................................................. 12 5. COMMERCIAL COURT RULES ........................................................................................................ 14 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................. 30 § 1.1 JUDGE’S ROLE ....................................................................................................................... 31 § 1.2 COUNSEL’S ROLE ................................................................................................................... 34 § 1.3 APPOINTING A COMMERCIAL COURT MASTER ............................................................................. 36 § 1.4 USING COURT-APPOINTED EXPERTS .......................................................................................... 37 § 1.5 RELATED LITIGATION ............................................................................................................... 38 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCES................................................