Legal Opinion

Hoffman v. Cohen

Supreme Court of Delaware

Decided March 4, 1988PublishedCited by 23 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HOLLAND, Justice:

In this appeal, the appellants-plaintiffs below, Pamela J. Hoffman and Warren S. Hoffman (“the Hoffmans”), argue that the Superior Court erred in dismissing their complaint. The basis for the Superior Court's dismissal was its conclusion that the Hoffmans had filed an untimely motion, pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 25, for the substitution of a party following the death of the appellee-defendant below, Roland F. Cohen (“Cohen”). In reaching its decision, the Superior Court expressly declined to follow the line of federal cases interpreting Rule 25 of the Federal Rules…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Denis Rende v. Alfred S. KayCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1969
  2. Yonofsky v. WernickDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1973
  3. Alan McSurely and Margaret McSurely v. John K. McClellan Thomas Ratliff, Individually and as Sometime Commonwealth Attorney for Pike County KentuckyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1985
  4. Gronowicz v. LeonardDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1986
  5. Canaday v. Superior CourtSupreme Court of Delaware · 1955

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. Burkhart v. DaviesSupreme Court of Delaware · 1991
  2. Appriva Shareholder Litigation Co. v. Ev3, Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 2007
  3. Nottingham Partners v. DanaSupreme Court of Delaware · 1989
  4. Cede & Co. v. Technicolor, Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 2000
  5. Smith v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 1994

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API