G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases ·
…no further action of a plaintiff is required under rule 1007 to commence an action.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2004
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Eduardo Alvarado Chaverri v. Dole Food Company
Gramercy, 173 A.3d at 1036–37. 193 Id. at 1044. 194 Chadwick v. Metro Corp, 856 A.2d 1066 , 2004 WL 1874652, at *2 (Del.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gramercy Emerging Markets Fund v. Allied Irish Banks, P.L.C.
Our Supreme Court has stated the McWane considerations as follows: “[u]nder McWane and its progeny, a judge, in the exercise of his or her discretion, may stay or dismiss a later-filed suit where a first-filed suit is pending in a court capable of administering prompt and complete justice, and involves substantially similar parties and issues.” Chadwick v. Metro Corp., 2004 WL 1874652, at *2 (Del.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kennedy v. Barboza
(2×)
Jan. 24, 2011). 33 See Mine Safety Appliances Co., 2011 WL 300252 , at *4 (citing McWane, 263 A.2d at 283 ). 34 See Chadwick v. Metro Corp., 2004 WL 1874652, at *2 (Del.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kennedy v. Barboza
(2×)
Jan. 24, 2011). 33 See Mine Safety Appliances Co., 2011 WL 300252 , at *4 (citing McWane, 263 A.2d at 283 ). 34 See Chadwick v. Metro Corp., 2004 WL 1874652, at *2 (Del.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Briddell v. Dr. Hanuschak
A party claiming that res judicata bars a claim in a subsequent action must demonstrate that: (1) the court making the prior adjudication had jurisdiction; (2) the parties in the present action are either the same parties or in privity with the parties from the prior adjudication; (3) the prior adjudication was final; (4) the causes of action were the same in both cases or the issues decided in the prior action were the same as those raised in the present case; and (5) the issues in the prior action were decided adversely to the party’s contention in 4 As of the date of this Memorandum Opini…
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Lisa, S.A. v. Mayorga
(4×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Although the 1999 Florida Action and the Federal Action cannot be treated as first filed under the McWane doctrine, those actions underscore the fact that Lisa's Delaware action was the last filed in this complicated family dispute. 17 .Chadwick, 2004 WL 1874652, at *2 ("under the McWane doctrine, a duplicative action that is substantially or functionally identical to an earlier suit may be dismissed or stayed.”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Wright v. State
See Kostyshyn v. State, 856 A.2d 1066 , 2004 WL 1874695 , at *1 (Del.2004) ("Under the Delaware Constitution, this Court may-review only a final judgment in a criminal case.”); Rash v. State, 318 A.2d 603, 604 (Del.1974) ("Under settled Delaware constitutional law only a final judgment in a criminal case is reviewable in this Court.”); State v. Roberts, 282 A.2d 603, 605 (Del.1971) ("This Court has repeatedly held that, under [Article IV, Section 11(1)(b) of the Delaware Constitution] the jurisdiction of this Court in criminal cases is limited of the review of final judgments. ...”); Nor…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Holley v. Nipro Diagnostics, Inc.
(2×)
Oct. 24, 1996)); see also Chadwick v. Metro Corp., 856 A.2d 1066 (Table), 2004 WL 1874652, at *2 (Del. 2004) (―Under McWane and its progeny, a judge, in the exercise of his or her discretion, may stay or dismiss a later-filed suit where a first-filed suit is pending in a court capable of administering prompt and complete justice, and involves substantially similar parties and issues.‖); Transamerica Corp., 1995 WL 1312656 , at *3. 7 Schnell v. Porta Sys.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Yucaipa American Alliance Fund I
(2×)
Oct. 24, 1996)); see also Chadwick v. Metro Corp., 856 A.2d 1066 (Table), 2004 WL 1874652, at *2 (Del. 2004) (―Under McWane and its progeny, a judge, in the exercise of his or her discretion, may stay or dismiss a later-filed suit where a first-filed suit is pending in a court capable of administering prompt and complete justice, and involves substantially similar parties and issues.‖); Transamerica Corp., 1995 WL 1312656 , at *3. 20 ―common nucleus of operative facts.‖39 Likewise, parties are considered substantially the same for purposes of McWane ―where related entities are involv…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Diedenhofen-Lennartz v. Diedenhofen
(2×)
Id. at 283 (emphasis added); see also Chadwick v. Metro Corp., 856 A.2d 1066 (Table), 2004 WL 1874652, at *2 (Del.2004) ("Under McWane and its progeny, a judge, in the exercise of his or her discretion, may stay or dismiss a later-filed suit where a first-filed suit is pending in a court capable of administering prompt and complete justice, and involves substantially similar parties and issues.”). 8 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Graham v. Brooks
Aug. 20, 2003)); see also In re Graham, 856 A.2d 1066 , 2004 WL 301094 (2004).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
CHADWICK
v.
METRO CORP.
v.
METRO CORP.
44,2004.
Supreme Court of Delaware.
Aug 12, 2004.
Cited by 14 opinions | Published
Decision without published opinion. Affirmed.