Legal Opinion
Winter v. Pennsylvania Railroad
Superior Court of Delaware
Decided September 1, 1948PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Pearson, Judge.
Defendant’s motion to dismiss is based on the ground that the complaint does not comply with the requirement of Rule 9(b) that “In all averments of * * * negligence, the circumstances constituting * * * negligence shall be stated with particularity.” The motion to strike is on the ground that certain averments are redundant, immaterial and impertinent.
It appears from the amended complaint that plaintiff was a passenger on one of defendant’s trains.- The conductor informed plaintiff that he would have the train stopped at defendant’s yards to let plaintiff off and invited…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Gallegher v. DavisSuperior Court of Delaware · 1936
- Perry v. Missouri-Kansas Pipe Line Co.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1937
- Raisler Sprinkler Co. v. Automatic Sprinkler Co. of AmericaSuperior Court of Delaware · 1934
- Cannon v. Delaware Electric Power Co.Superior Court of Delaware · 1941
- O'Neil v. E. I. duPont de Nemours & Co.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1919
3Cited by6 opinions
- Barni v. KutnerSuperior Court of Delaware · 1950
- Delaware Coach Co. v. ReynoldsSupreme Court of Delaware · 1950
- Laskowski v. Atomic Cleaners & Dyers, Inc.Superior Court of Delaware · 1952
- Simonds v. MilesSuperior Court of Delaware · 1948
- Mackey v. O'NealSuperior Court of Delaware · 1952
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.