Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
13 results for '* judge:"Judge Jones"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2023-06-06
Practice Area: Products Liability
Industry: Manufacturing
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Judge: Judge Jones
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Michael C. Dalton, Dalton & Associates, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Michael Collins Smith, Balick & Balick, LLC, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
for defendant: Brian D. Tome, Reilly, McDevitt & Henrich, P.C., Wilmington, DE, attorney for defendant.
Case Number: N19C-01-100 ASB
Manufacturer of machinery expressly designed to work on asbestos-containing products could have liability in asbestos litigation since use of the product would inevitably create hazardous asbestos dust, imposing a duty to warn upon the manufacturer.
Publication Date: 2023-03-14
Practice Area: Contractual Disputes
Industry: E-Commerce | Software
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Judge: Judge Jones
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Andrew Silverman, MacElree Harvey Ltd., Centreville, DE for plaintiff.
for defendant: Scott Czerwonka, Wilks Law Firm, LLC Wilmington, DE for defendant.
Case Number: N22C-08-445 FJJ
The court denied a motion to dismiss a contractual dispute claim that involved a defendant corporation incorporated in Scotland.
Publication Date: 2023-03-14
Practice Area: Real Estate
Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Real Estate
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Judge: Judge Jones
Attorneys: For plaintiff: David E. Matlusky, The Matlusky Firm, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
for defendant: Evan Rassman, Emily Letcher, Cohen Seglias, Palias, Greenhall & Furman, P.C., for defendants.
Case Number: N22C-08-453 FJJ
The court denied a motion to dismiss a claim for waste on the grounds that plaintiff's claims sufficiently laid out a claim for waste on the grounds that plaintiff sufficiently pled that a mortgage encumbered a property that he had a certain future interest in and therefore his claims fell squarely within the jurisdiction of the superior court.
Publication Date: 2023-02-21
Practice Area: Contracts
Industry: Distribution and Wholesale | Legal Services | Manufacturing
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Judge: Judge Jones
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Aman Kaushik Sharma, The Sharma Law Firm, LLC, Wilmington, DE for plaintiffs.
for defendant: David A. Felice, Bailey & Glasser LLP, Wilmington, DE; Ari S. Casper, Ralph S. Tyler, The Casper Firm, LLC, Baltimore, MD for defendants.
Case Number: N22C-09-799 FJJ
Court could exercise personal jurisdiction over parties who had been afforded certain rights and benefits under a settlement agreement, even though they were not signatories to the settlement.
Publication Date: 2023-01-10
Practice Area: Fee Disputes
Industry: Real Estate | State and Local Government
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Judge: Judge Jones
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Bradley Eaby, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, Wilmington, DE for petitioner.
for defendant: Richard L. Abbott, Abbot Law Firm, Hockessin, DE for defendant.
Case Number: S21C-03-017 FJJ
The court granted a motion for attorney fees in part and denied in part finding that defendant LLC was owed fees following a condemnation trial where the court's valuation of the property was higher than that initially offered by the State.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: George Bochetto, David P. Heim, John A. O’Connell, Robert S. Tintner
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2022-12-27
Practice Area: Labor Law
Industry: Construction
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Judge: Judge Jones
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Linda Wilson, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, DE for appellant.
for defendant: David Crumplar, Jacobs & Crumplar, Wilmington, DE for appellee.
Case Number: N22A-04-002- FJJ
Date of diagnosis of an occupational disease, rather than the date of last exposure to the cause of the disease, was the relevant date for determining a worker's average weekly wage and the controlling maximum weekly benefit.
Publication Date: 2022-05-31
Practice Area: Criminal Law
Industry:
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Judge: Judge Jones
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Daniel McBride, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
for defendant: Elise Wolpert, Office of Eugene I. Maurer, Jr., P.A. Wilmington, DE for defendant.
Case Number: D69831
Second warrant, which cured overbroad defects from a prior warrant, was permissible under the independent source doctrine where no evidence directly or indirectly obtained from the improper first warrant was used to apply for the second warrant.
Publication Date: 2022-05-24
Practice Area: Products Liability
Industry: Health Care | Manufacturing
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Judge: Judge Jones
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Robert J. Leoni, Shelby & Leoni, Wilmington, DE for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Colleen D. Shields, Eckert, Seamans, Cherin & Mellott LLC, Wilmington, DE for defendant.
Case Number: D69829
Court excluded expert testimony to the extent it opined about corporate defendant's state of mind or the reasonableness of its actions or attempted to offer a legal conclusion, since such testimony would usurp the fact-finding province of the jury.
Publication Date: 2021-12-14
Practice Area: Real Estate
Industry:
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Judge: Judge Jones
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Donald L. Gouge, Jr., Donald L. Gouge, Jr., LLC, Wilmington, DE for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Steven Schwartz, Schwartz & Schwartz, P.A., Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: D69644
Court awarded court costs and partial legal fees to homebuyers who partially prevailed in suit alleging sellers failed to disclose defects in residential property.
Publication Date: 2021-11-23
Practice Area: Criminal Law
Industry:
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Judge: Judge Jones
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Sean P. Lugg, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Wilmington, DE, for the State.
for defendant: Christopher Koyste, Bellefonte, DE for defendant.
Case Number: D69616
The court held that defendant was not entitled to post-conviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 where certain perjured testimony by a supposed eyewitness did not prejudice defendant's conviction, where there was no prej-udicial prosecutorial misconduct and where the issue of a Brady violation was moot.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read