Legal Opinion

Paolino v. MacE Security International, Inc.

Court of Chancery of Delaware

Decided December 14, 2009No. Civil Action 4462-VCLPublishedCited by 55 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

LASTER, Vice Chancellor.

Plaintiff Louis D. Paolino, Jr. seeks indemnification and advancement of fees and expenses incurred in defending against counterclaims asserted against him by the defendant, Mace Security International, Inc. (“Mace” or the “Company”), in an arbitration proceeding that Paolino originally filed. Mace has moved to dismiss the complaint. I deny the motion. I stay the matter pending the outcome of the underlying arbitration to the extent it seeks indemnification. The action shall proceed summarily to the extent it seeks advancement. The parties agreed at oral…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Citadel Holding Corp. v. RovenSupreme Court of Delaware · 1992
  2. Homestore, Inc. v. TafeenSupreme Court of Delaware · 2005
  3. Feldman v. CutaiaSupreme Court of Delaware · 2008
  4. Stifel Financial Corp. v. CochranSupreme Court of Delaware · 2002
  5. Sun-Times Media Group, Inc. v. BlackCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 2008

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

3Cited by55 opinions

  1. Carsanaro v. Bloodhound Technologies, Inc.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 2013
  2. Connelly v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceSupreme Court of Delaware · 2016
  3. Scott Pontone v. Milso Industries CorporationCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 2014
  4. Marino v. Patriot Rail Company LLCCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 2016
  5. Sandt v. Energy Maintenance Services Group I, LLCCourt of Appeals of Texas · 2017

50 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