Legal Opinion
Neoplan USA Corp. v. Taylor
District Court, D. Delaware
Decided March 26, 1985No. Civ. A. 84-09 LONPublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
LONGOBARDI, District Judge.
Defendants in this action, General Motors Corporation (“GMC”), Delaware Administration for Regional Transit (“DART”) and the eight individual Defendants have moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’, Neoplan USA Corporation (“Neoplan”) and William D. Bubb (“Bubb”), claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 49 U.S.C. § 1601 and state contract law. The Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by res judicata, collateral estoppel, official immunity and the eleventh amendment.
Since the motion to dismiss is accompanied by supplementary factual affidavits, the Court will treat…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Migra v. Warren City School District Board of EducationSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Maine v. ThiboutotSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Brown v. Board of EducationSupreme Court of the United States · 1955
- Zapata Corp. v. MaldonadoSupreme Court of Delaware · 1981
- Coca Cola Co. v. Pepsi-Cola Co.Superior Court of Delaware · 1934
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Greenberg v. Potomac Health Systems, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1994
- Amico v. New Castle CountyDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1987
- Brady v. CF Schwartz Motor Co., Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 1989
- Connell v. Liberty Mutual InsuranceDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1994
- In Re Asbestos Litigation (Lee)Superior Court of Delaware · 1986
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.