Legal Opinion

Marks v. Wolfson

Court of Chancery of Delaware

Decided February 8, 1963PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Marvel, Vice Chancellor:

Plaintiffs in the above cases, which were tried together, submitted evidence in support of their respective contentions. At the conclusion of their cases in chief, counsel for the defendants against whom relief is sought, without waiving their clients’ rights to offer further evidence in the event that their motions should not be granted, moved for dismissal under Rule 41 (b), Del. C. Ann. on the grounds that upon the facts and the law both plaintiffs had failed to show any right to relief. Because much of the evidence upon which plaintiffs rely was elicited from the…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Allied Chemical & Dye Corp. v. Steel & Tube Co. of AmericaCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1923
  2. Allied Chemical & Dye Corp. v. Steel & Tube Co. of AmericaCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1923
  3. Allaun v. Consolidated Oil Co.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1929
  4. Robinson v. Pittsburgh Oil Refining Corp.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1924
  5. Bennett v. Breuil Petroleum Corp.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1953

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Gimbel v. Signal Companies, Inc.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1974
  2. Warshaw v. CalhounSupreme Court of Delaware · 1966
  3. Vandervelde v. Put and Call Brokers and Dealers Ass'nDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1972
  4. Marks v. WolfsonCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1963
  5. Umbriac v. KaiserDistrict Court, D. Nevada · 1979

2 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