Legal Opinion

Gluckman v. Holzman

Court of Chancery of Delaware

Decided February 26, 1947PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Seitz, Vice-Chancellor:

I am required to determine at the demurrer stage whether certain oral evidence would *459be rejected at the final hearing because of the paroi evidence rule.

Since this matter arises on demurrer, the material factual allegations of the bill are taken to be true. These allegations will be summarized.

Both the complainant Albert G. Gluckman and the defendant Mark B. Holzman are medical doctors practicing in New Castle County, Delaware. The defendant Aimee B. Holzman is the wife of the defendant Mark B. Holzman. Reference to “defendant” herein is intended to refer to Dr. Mark B.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Eustis Mining Co. v. Beer, Sondheimer & Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1917
  2. Maxfield v. TerryCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1873
  3. Tull v. SmithCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1946

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Sundlun v. Executive Jet Aviation, Inc.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1970
  2. Glenn v. Tide Water Associated Oil Co.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1953
  3. Gluckman v. HolzmanCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1947
  4. Bushansky v. Soon-Shiong, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
  5. Mesa Partners v. Phillips Petroleum Co.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1984

8 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