Denning v. E. I. duPont de Nemours & Co.
Superior Court of Delaware
1Opinion of the CourtLayton, J.
Preliminarily I shall dispose of Universal’s contention that this Court has no power to quash the issuance of the subpoenae here because the petition seeking their issuance complies in all respects with the provisions of 4707, Revised Code of 1935, as amended. I cannot agree with this argument. A Court always has the inherent power over its own process and, in a proper case, may vacate or quash writs, returns, or other process incorrectly or improvidently issued. Here the right to take the depositions of the very witnesses sought to be examined is challenged. Surely this Court is not -…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- New Jersey Trust & Safe Deposit Co. v. Camden Safe Deposit & Trust Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1895
- Quill v. CarpenterSuperior Court of Delaware · 1939
- Levy v. KirbyCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1937
3Cited by6 opinions
- United States v. Abraham MinkerCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1955
- Ahern v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952
- Lake Shore Nat. Bank v. Bellanca Aircraft CorporationDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1949
- Taylor v. HowettCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1961
- Division of Family Services v. A.B.Delaware Family Court · 2009
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.