Oppenheim v. Sterling Tire Corp.
Superior Court of Delaware
1Opinion of the Court
Rodney, J.,
delivering the opinion of the Court:
"We are not greatly impressed by the suggestion that the fact that "the office and employees of' the defendant company are located in New York makes it impossible to know what records' or' testimony may' be necessary at the trial or inconvenient to obtain the same. ■ We prefer to decide the case upon principle. If a resident defendant- under similar circumstances would not -be' *537granted a bill of particulars, we are not inclined to so indulge a corporation of this state which chooses to keep its records and employees without the state.
The…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Spitz v. HeinzeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1902
- Eliason v. DraperSuperior Court of Delaware · 1910
- Haskell v. AfricaSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1895
- State v. McDanielNew York Court of General Session of the Peace · 1902
- State v. McCollomNew York Court of General Session of the Peace · 1918
3Cited by4 opinions
- Szymanska v. Equitable Life InsuranceSuperior Court of Delaware · 1936
- MacDonough v. A. S. Beck Shoe Corp.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1940
- Sharp v. HayesSuperior Court of Delaware · 1946
- Yerkey v. WrightSuperior Court of Delaware · 1944