Legal Opinion
Finkbiner v. Mullins
Superior Court of Delaware
Decided April 28, 1987PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
CHANDLER, Judge.
This is the Court’s decision on nonresident defendant Charles H. Ahmer’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 12 on the ground that the Court lacks jurisdiction over his person. The plaintiff William C. Finkbiner and co-defendant Gene Mullins have presented briefs opposing this motion, the latter asserting standing on the basis of his crossclaim against Ahmer for indemnity or contribution.
I. Background
Plaintiffs cause of action is a personal injury suit arising out of an accident which occurred at 3:15 a.m. on July 10, 1984 in the parking lot of…
2Cases cited34 opinions
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. WoodsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Hanson v. DencklaSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- Milliken v. MeyerSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Kulko v. Superior Court of Cal., City and County of San FranciscoSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Werner v. Miller Technology Management, L.P.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 2003
- Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Sears PlcDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1990
- Lang v. MorantSupreme Court of Delaware · 2005
- Mendelson v. Delaware River & Bay AuthorityDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1999
- Niemann v. RogersDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1992
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.