Legal Opinion

Mackey v. O'Neal

Superior Court of Delaware

Decided December 9, 1952No. 855PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Herrmann, J.:

The defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint. Their motion was filed pursuant to Rule 12(h) (6)1 and is as follows:

“Defendants, by William H. Bennethum, their attorney, hereby move to dismiss the complaint heretofore filed in the above captioned cause for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.”

The plaintiffs have moved to strike the defendants’ motion upon the ground that it does not comply with Rule 7(b) (1) which requires that a motion “shall state with particularity the grounds therefor”.

The defendants’ motion must be held to be sufficient because it…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Pfeifer v. Johnson Motor Lines, Inc.Superior Court of Delaware · 1952
  2. Laskowski v. Atomic Cleaners & Dyers, Inc.Superior Court of Delaware · 1952
  3. Winter v. Pennsylvania RailroadSuperior Court of Delaware · 1948
  4. Simonds v. MilesSuperior Court of Delaware · 1948

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Gordy v. Preform Building Components, Inc.Superior Court of Delaware · 1973
  2. LNC Investments, Inc. v. Democratic Republic of CongoDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1999

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

Powered by the Exa API