Legal Opinion
Ciconte v. Shockley
Court of Chancery of Delaware
Decided August 3, 1950PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
75 A.2d 242 (1950)
CICONTE
v.
SHOCKLEY.
Court of Chancery of Delaware, Sussex.
August 3, 1950.
Daniel J. Layton, Jr., Georgetown, for plaintiff.
James M. Tunnell, of Tunnell & Tunnell, Georgetown, for defendant.
HARRINGTON, Chancellor.
The question is whether the plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief against the defendant.
Ciconte, the plaintiff, owns a building consisting of seven stores, one-story high and under one roof, on the west side of First Street in the town of Rehoboth, occupied by tenants. A small part of the same building at the southern end is occupied by the plaintiff as a residence…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Harlan & Hollingsworth Co. v. PaschallCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1882
- Davis v. . Niagara Falls Tower Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1902
- Chorman v. Queen Anne's RailroadSuperior Court of Delaware · 1901
- Melin v. RichmanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1921
- Staats v. HubbardCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1949
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Pruett v. DaytonCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1961
- Pruett v. DaytonCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1961
- Weldin Farms, Inc. v. GlassmanSupreme Court of Delaware · 1980
- Smith v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1953
- E. J. Hollingsworth Co. v. Jardel Co.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1962
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.