Hutchinson v. Fish Engineering Corp.
Court of Chancery of Delaware
1Opinion of the Court
Seitz, Chancellor:
Plaintiff, Arthur J. L. Plutchinson, brings this action against The Fish Engineering Corporation (“Fish”), Pacific Northwest Pipeline Corporation (“Pacific”), and entities denominated Doe One to Six.
The appearing defendants have attacked the inclusion of the Doe defendants and under our practice I do not think it is permissible. I shall consider the motion of the two named defendants as a motion to strike the Doe defendants. It will be granted. Subsequent reference to “defendants” therefore will embrace only Fish and Pacific.
The elaborate complaint in effect charges that by…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Bovay v. H. M. Byllesby & Co.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1944
- Wright v. ScottonSupreme Court of Delaware · 1923
- Schleiff v. Baltimore & Ohio RailroadCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1955
3Cited by6 opinions
- Van Biene v. ERA Helicopters, Inc.Alaska Supreme Court · 1989
- Steinberg v. ShieldsCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1959
- Steinberg v. ShieldsCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1959
- Hutchinson v. The Fish Engineering Corp.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1963
- Hutchinson v. FISH ENGINEERING CORPORATIONCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1959
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.