Legal Opinion

Boxer v. Husky Oil Co.

Court of Chancery of Delaware

Decided April 24, 1981PublishedCited by 29 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HARTNETT, Vice Chancellor.

Defendants moved to dismiss this action on the grounds that this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction or alternatively because certain parties have not yet been made defendants and they are indispensable parties to this action. Both grounds for dismissal must be denied.

I

Husky Exploration Limited was a Colorado limited partnership formed for the purpose of investment in oil and mineral resources. The plaintiffs in this action are the limited partners of Husky Exploration Limited who seek to assert claims against defendant Husky Petroleum Corporation, the…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Meinhard v. SalmonNew York Court of Appeals · 1928
  2. Newburger, Loeb & Co. v. GrossCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1977
  3. duPont v. duPontSupreme Court of Delaware · 1951
  4. Glanding v. Industrial Trust Co.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1945
  5. Lynch v. Vickers Energy Corp.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1981

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

3Cited by29 opinions

  1. WALLACE EX REL. CENCOM v. WoodCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1999
  2. Gotham Partners, L.P. v. Hallwood Realty Partners, L.P.Supreme Court of Delaware · 2002
  3. Continental Insurance v. Rutledge & Co.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 2000
  4. Feeley v. Nhaocg, LLCCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 2012
  5. Goldin v. Primavera Familienstiftung, Tag Associates, Ltd. (In Re Granite Partners, L.P.)United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · 1996

24 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