Legal Opinion
Harrison v. Ramunno
Supreme Court of Delaware
Decided June 4, 1999No. 185, 1999PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HOLLAND, Justice:
This Court has before it, the defendant-appellee’s, L. Vincent Ramunno (“Ramun-no”) motion to dismiss. The motion asserts that the plaintiffs-appellants, C.L. Scott Harrison and Helene L. Livingston (“Harrison and Livingston”) are asking this Court to review an interlocutory ruling but have failed to comply with Supreme Court Rule 42. We have concluded that Ramunno’s motion to dismiss must be granted.
Harrison and Livingston brought a civil action against Ramunno in the Superior Court. The complaint alleged, inter alia, intentional and negligent interference with the property…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Rhone-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Co. v. American Motorists Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1992
- Werb v. D'AlessandroSupreme Court of Delaware · 1992
- Pauline Sacks and Marvin Sacks v. Herbert RothbergCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1988
- Giordano v. MartaSupreme Court of Delaware · 1998
3Cited by8 opinions
- Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Aetos Corp.Supreme Court of Delaware · 2002
- Lipson v. LipsonSupreme Court of Delaware · 2001
- Emerald Partners v. BerlinSupreme Court of Delaware · 2001
- AMETEK, Inc. v. NSI-MI Holdings, LLCSupreme Court of Delaware · 2024
- Adams v. AIDOOSupreme Court of Delaware · 2009
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.