In Re Asbestos Litigation (Lee)
Superior Court of Delaware
1Opinion of the Court
POPPITI, Judge.
This is a decision on Gale Corporation’s Motion for Summary Judgment in the above listed cases. Gale Corporation, relying on the principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel, asserts that it should not be a party to this litigation because it is only named as a party as a possible successor corporation to Baldwin-Ehret-Hill, Inc. or Keene Building Products Corporation, an issue already decided in previous litigation in other jurisdictions.
In ruling on this question the Court must necessarily examine the corporate history of Keene Corporation. In this regard, the Court is…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Epstein v. Chatham Park, Inc.Superior Court of Delaware · 1959
- Chrysler Corp. v. New Castle CountySuperior Court of Delaware · 1983
- Foltz v. Pullman, IncorporatedSuperior Court of Delaware · 1974
- Neoplan USA Corp. v. TaylorDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1985
3Cited by5 opinions
- Playtex Family Products, Inc. v. St. Paul Surplus Lines InsuranceSuperior Court of Delaware · 1989
- Potomac Design, Inc. v. Eurocal Trading, Inc.District Court, D. Maryland · 1993
- Lomax v. Nationwide Mutual InsuranceDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1991
- Hawk Investment Holdings Ltd. v. Stream TV Networks, Inc.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 2022
- RAJAN v. CrawfordDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2022