Legal Opinion

Wealth v. Renai

Superior Court of Delaware

Decided March 2, 1955No. 637, Civil Action, 1954PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Layton, J.:

Plaintiff interposes two grounds of objection to defendant’s motion to strike, (1) that such a motion is improper and (2) that inasmuch as it is not clear that the section in question excludes pedestrians from its scope, defendant’s motion must be denied.

Plaintiff, is clearly correct in objecting to the form of defendant’s motion. A motion to strike under Superior Court Rules, Civil rule 12 (f), Del. C. Ann., is not proper where it seeks the dismissal of one of the causes of action in a complaint ás a matter of law. This was the function of the old demurrer, now abolished by the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Lindsay v. CecchiSupreme Court of Delaware · 1911
  2. Brown v. SchendelmanSuperior Court of Delaware · 1928
  3. Warren v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc.Superior Court of Delaware · 1951

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Duphily v. Delaware Electric Cooperative, Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1995
  2. Wright v. MoffittSupreme Court of Delaware · 1981
  3. Sammons Ex Rel. Sammons v. RidgewaySupreme Court of Delaware · 1972
  4. Nance v. ReesSupreme Court of Delaware · 1960
  5. James Hetherton and Carol Hetherton, His Wife v. Sears, Roebuck & Company, a New York CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1979

11 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