Legal Opinion
Tuckman v. Aerosonic Corp.
Court of Chancery of Delaware
Decided September 11, 1978PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HARTNETT, Vice Chancellor.
One of the individual defendants, Herbert J. Frank, moved to dismiss this action, as to him, for lack of this Court’s jurisdiction over him and insufficiency of service of process upon him. The issue before me is whether defendant-Frank has waived his right to challenge a jurisdictional defect established as the result of Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 97 S.Ct. 2569, 53 L.Ed.2d 683 (1977), a decision handed down after Frank had entered his general appearance in this action.
The present suit was filed on January 13, 1973, by plaintiff against corporate defendants…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Schneckloth v. BustamonteSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Johnson v. ZerbstSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- New York Times Co. v. SullivanSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Shaffer v. HeitnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Curtis Publishing Co. v. ButtsSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Lybbert v. Grant CountyWashington Supreme Court · 2000
- Istituto Bancario Italiano SpA v. Hunter Engineering Co.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1982
- Hornberger Management Co. v. Haws & Tingle General Contractors, Inc.Superior Court of Delaware · 2000
- Lybbert v. Grant County, State of Wash.Washington Supreme Court · 2000
- Alan Cohen v. Nouri Edward Hakim, and Admar International, Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 2026
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.