Pottock v. Continental Can Co.
Court of Chancery of Delaware
1Opinion of the Court
Seitz, Chancellor:
Plaintiff brought this action against the coporate defendant to enjoin an alleged nuisance and for damages. By way of answer defendant has set up certain affirmative defenses. This opinion is concerned with two of them, namely, (1) plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and (2) plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law. If either defense has merit the scheduled trial on the nuisance issue should not be held. In consequence, the court, with agreement of counsel, has decided to determine now whether either of these defenses has legal merit.
Plaintiff operates…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- duPont v. duPontSupreme Court of Delaware · 1951
- Tollin v. Diamond State Telephone Co.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1960
- Schofield v. Material Transit, Inc.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1960
- Tollin v. DIAMOND STATE TELEPHONE COMPANYCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1960
3Cited by4 opinions
- Delaware Bankers Ass'n v. Division of RevenueCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1972
- Pottock v. Continental Can Co.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1965
- Eastern Shore Natural Gas Co. v. Stauffer Chemical Co.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1971
- Pottock v. Continental Can Co.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1965