Legal Opinion
Hercules Powder Company v. DiSabatino
Supreme Court of Delaware
Decided January 7, 1963No. 24 and 25PublishedCited by 27 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtWolcott, J.
(for the majority of the Court):
These are cross-appeals by both plaintiffs and defendant in an action which, after trial, resulted in a hung jury. The defendant, Hercules Powder Company appeals from two interlocutory orders of the Superior Court, viz., first, the denial of a motion for a directed verdict for the defendant, and, second, the denial of a motion under Superior Court Rule 50(b), Del. C. for judgment for the defendant.
The cross-appeal was taken by the plaintiffs from various adverse rulings made during the course of the trial. The cross-appeal is supported upon the theory that if a…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- International Harvester Co. v. SartainCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1948
- Stark v. Lehigh Foundries, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1957
- Greenwald v. Northern States Power Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1948
- Royal Indemnity Co. v. Midland Counties Public Service Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1919
- Heyer v. Jersey Central Power & Light Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1929
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- Brzoska v. OlsonSupreme Court of Delaware · 1995
- Delaware Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. DuphilySupreme Court of Delaware · 1997
- Dorsey v. Yoder CompanyDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1971
- Duphily v. Delaware Electric Cooperative, Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1995
- In Re Asbestos LitigationSuperior Court of Delaware · 1986
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.