Legal Opinion
Preston v. Board of Adjustment
Supreme Court of Delaware
Decided May 2, 2001No. 410, 2000PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Per curiam
In this appeal, we consider whether the Superior Court properly determined that the appeal of the Appellants/Defendants-below, Gabriel and Jean Preston (the “Prestons”), should be dismissed for failure to join a party as required by Superior Court Civil Rule 19, and that such failure was not cured by the relation-back requirements of Superior Court Civil Rule 15(c). While we conclude that the Superi- or Court correctly ruled that the Prestons failed to join an indispensable party in their appeal, we further conclude that AT&T Wireless of Philadelphia, LLC (“AT&T”) constructively intervened in…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Precision Air, Inc. v. Standard Chlorine of Delaware, Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1995
- Mullen v. Alarmguard of Delmarva, Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1993
- State v. CephasSupreme Court of Delaware · 1994
- Riggs v. RiggsSupreme Court of Delaware · 1988
- Mergenthaler, Inc. v. JeffersonSupreme Court of Delaware · 1975
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- CCS INVESTORS, LLC v. BrownSupreme Court of Delaware · 2009
- DiFebo v. Board of Adjustment ofSupreme Court of Delaware · 2016
- American Funding Services v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 2012
- Abdul-Akbar v. DHSS Hearing OfficeSuperior Court of Delaware · 2018
- Abdul-Akbar v. Health OptionsSuperior Court of Delaware · 2018
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.