Legal Opinion
Trader v. Jester
Superior Court of Delaware
Decided August 12, 1938No. 39PublishedCited by 22 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Layton, C. J.,
delivering the opinion of the Court:
The first contention of the defendant is that Section 2, Chapter 245, Volume 40, Delaware Laws, (Sec. 4989, Rev. Code 1935) was not intended to apply to Kent and Sussex Counties. The argument is that the enactment was intended to amend Section 2, Chapter 271, Volume 36, Delaware Laws (Sec. 4535 Rev. Code 1915) by extending the proviso of that section to the County of New Castle, and that through unintentional error the entire proviso was omitted. The error is made manifest, it is said, by reference to the headnote of the section as it appears…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Caminetti v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
- United States v. Jin Fuey MoySupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- W. B. Worthen Co. v. KavanaughSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Keller v. Wilson Co. Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1936
- Van Winkle v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 1914
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Ruano v. SpellmanWashington Supreme Court · 1973
- State v. Calumet & Hecla Consol. Copper Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1953
- Commonwealth v. SadvariSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
- Terex Corp. v. Southern Track & Pump, Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 2015
- Koval v. PeoplesSuperior Court of Delaware · 1981
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.