Legal Opinion

Mullen v. Alarmguard of Delmarva, Inc.

Supreme Court of Delaware

Decided June 2, 1993PublishedCited by 55 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WALSH, Justice:

In this interlocutory appeal from the Superior Court, we examine the basis for permitting a plaintiff to amend his complaint to add an additional defendant after the period of limitations has expired. The Superior Court ruled that such an amendment relates back under Superior Court Civil Rule 15(c) only where there is a mistake concerning the identity of an original defendant and that the subjective knowledge of the party sought to be added concerning the mistake is irrelevant. We hold that misconception of identity of parties within the meaning of Rule 15(c) extends to…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Rohner v. NiemannSupreme Court of Delaware · 1977
  2. Chrysler Corp. v. New Castle CountySuperior Court of Delaware · 1983
  3. Mergenthaler, Inc. v. JeffersonSupreme Court of Delaware · 1975
  4. Vadala v. Henkels & McCoy, Inc.Superior Court of Delaware · 1979
  5. Annone v. Kawasaki Motor Corp.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1974

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

3Cited by55 opinions

  1. United States Cellular Investment Co. of Allentown v. Bell Atlantic Mobile Systems, Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1996
  2. Hecksher v. Fairwinds Baptist Church, Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 2015
  3. Biondi v. ScrushyCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 2003
  4. Gotham Partners, L.P. v. Hallwood Realty Partners, L.P.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1998
  5. Preston v. Board of AdjustmentSupreme Court of Delaware · 2001

50 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