6 Delaware opinions name it 2 courts 1970–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Delaware courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Lord v. Soudergreen2 sentences2017The second exception is when the document is not being relied upon to prove the truth of its contents.”15 “Where allegations are merely conclusory, however, (i.e., without specific allegations of fact to support them) they may be deemed insufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.”16 Dismissal will not be granted if the complaint “gives general notice as to the nature of the claim asserted against the defendant.”17 A claim will not be dismissed unless it is clearly without merit, which may be either a matter of law or fact.18 Vagueness or lack of detail in the pleaded claim are insufficient 2016“Where allegations are merely conclusory, however, (i.e., without specific allegations of fact to support them) they may be deemed insufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.”4 Dismissal will not 2 Spence v. Funk, 396 A.2d 967, 968 (Del. 1978). 3 Id. 4 Lord v. Souder, 748 A.2d 393, 398 (Del. 2000). 5 be granted if the complaint “gives general notice as to the nature of the claim asserted against the defendant.”5 A claim will not be dismissed unless it is clearly without merit, which may be either a matter of law or fact.6 Vagueness or lack of detail in the pleaded claim are insufficient gro | 2 | 2 |
Diamond State Telephone Co. v. University of Delawaregreen2 sentences2017The second exception is when the document is not being relied upon to prove the truth of its contents.”15 “Where allegations are merely conclusory, however, (i.e., without specific allegations of fact to support them) they may be deemed insufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.”16 Dismissal will not be granted if the complaint “gives general notice as to the nature of the claim asserted against the defendant.”17 A claim will not be dismissed unless it is clearly without merit, which may be either a matter of law or fact.18 Vagueness or lack of detail in the pleaded claim are insufficient 2017The second exception is when the document is not being relied upon to prove the truth of its contents.”15 “Where allegations are merely conclusory, however, (i.e., without specific allegations of fact to support them) they may be deemed insufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.”16 Dismissal will not be granted if the complaint “gives general notice as to the nature of the claim asserted against the defendant.”17 A claim will not be dismissed unless it is clearly without merit, which may be either a matter of law or fact.18 Vagueness or lack of detail in the pleaded claim are insufficient | 1 | 2 |
Rodgers v. Erickson Air-Crane Co.green1 sentence2025STANDARD OF REVIEW In evaluating a Motion to Dismiss under Superior Court Civil Rule 12(b)(6), the Court must assume all well pleaded facts in the Complaint to be true.1 A Complaint will not be dismissed unless the Plaintiff would not be entitled to recover under any reasonably conceivable set of circumstances susceptible of proof. 2 A Complaint may not be dismissed unless it is clearly without merit, which may be a matter of law or fact.3 “Vagueness or lack of detail in the pleaded claim are not sufficient grounds alone to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim.”4 1 Rodgers v. Erick | 1 | 1 |
Nix v. Sawyergreen1 sentence2025Super. 1999) (citing Nix v. Sawyer, 466 A.2d 407, 410 (Del. | 1 | 1 |
Luyster v. Textron, Inc.green1 sentence2017Inasmuch as defendant…and third- party defendant…are not such opposing parties, [the] cross-claim is proper under Rule 13(g).”). 25 any authority to persuade the Court to find that ESW and Daystar, as co- Crossclaim Defendants or as Defendant and Crossclaim Defendant, are not “co- parties” for purposes of Rule 13(g).86 Nor is the Court convinced that dismissal on that basis would adhere to the requirement that the Delaware Superior Court Rules “be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every proceeding.”87 As Daystar points out, “the filing of a | 1 | 1 |
Vanderbilt Income & Growth Associates, L.L.C. v. Arvida/JMB Managers, Inc.green2 sentences2017The second exception is when the document is not being relied upon to prove the truth of its contents.”15 “Where allegations are merely conclusory, however, (i.e., without specific allegations of fact to support them) they may be deemed insufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.”16 Dismissal will not be granted if the complaint “gives general notice as to the nature of the claim asserted against the defendant.”17 A claim will not be dismissed unless it is clearly without merit, which may be either a matter of law or fact.18 Vagueness or lack of detail in the pleaded claim are insufficient 2017The second exception is when the document is not being relied upon to prove the truth of its contents.”15 “Where allegations are merely conclusory, however, (i.e., without specific allegations of fact to support them) they may be deemed insufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.”16 Dismissal will not be granted if the complaint “gives general notice as to the nature of the claim asserted against the defendant.”17 A claim will not be dismissed unless it is clearly without merit, which may be either a matter of law or fact.18 Vagueness or lack of detail in the pleaded claim are insufficient | 1 | 1 |
Georgia Ports Authority v. Construzioni Meccaniche Industriali Genovesi, S.P.A.green1 sentence2017Inasmuch as defendant…and third- party defendant…are not such opposing parties, [the] cross-claim is proper under Rule 13(g).”). 25 any authority to persuade the Court to find that ESW and Daystar, as co- Crossclaim Defendants or as Defendant and Crossclaim Defendant, are not “co- parties” for purposes of Rule 13(g).86 Nor is the Court convinced that dismissal on that basis would adhere to the requirement that the Delaware Superior Court Rules “be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every proceeding.”87 As Daystar points out, “the filing of a | 1 | 1 |
Earle M. Jorgenson Co. v. United States, Ltd.green1 sentence2017Jorgenson Co., 133 F.R.D. at 475 (“‘Opposing parties’…are parties that formally oppose each other on a pleaded claim, such as plaintiffs and original defendants, or third-party plaintiffs and the third-party defendants they have joined. | 1 | 1 |
Spence v. Funkgreen2 sentences2016“Where allegations are merely conclusory, however, (i.e., without specific allegations of fact to support them) they may be deemed insufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.”4 Dismissal will not 2 Spence v. Funk, 396 A.2d 967, 968 (Del. 1978). 3 Id. 4 Lord v. Souder, 748 A.2d 393, 398 (Del. 2000). 5 be granted if the complaint “gives general notice as to the nature of the claim asserted against the defendant.”5 A claim will not be dismissed unless it is clearly without merit, which may be either a matter of law or fact.6 Vagueness or lack of detail in the pleaded claim are insufficient gro 2016“Where allegations are merely conclusory, however, (i.e., without specific allegations of fact to support them) they may be deemed insufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.”4 Dismissal will not 2 Spence v. Funk, 396 A.2d 967, 968 (Del. 1978). 3 Id. 4 Lord v. Souder, 748 A.2d 393, 398 (Del. 2000). 5 be granted if the complaint “gives general notice as to the nature of the claim asserted against the defendant.”5 A claim will not be dismissed unless it is clearly without merit, which may be either a matter of law or fact.6 Vagueness or lack of detail in the pleaded claim are insufficient gro | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Delaware. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Morgan v. Wells
green
2 sentences1972Morgan v. Wells, 32 Del.Ch. 108 , 80 A.2d 504 (1951); Diamond State Telephone Company v. University of Delaware, 269 A.2d 52 (Del.Sup.Ct.1970). 1970Morgan v. Wells, 32 Del.Ch. 108 , 80 A.2d 504 (1951). | 2 | 1970–1972 |
Morgan v. Wells
green
2 sentences1972Morgan v. Wells, 32 Del.Ch. 108 , 80 A.2d 504 (1951); Diamond State Telephone Company v. University of Delaware, 269 A.2d 52 (Del.Sup.Ct.1970). 1970Morgan v. Wells, 32 Del.Ch. 108 , 80 A.2d 504 (1951). | 2 | 1970–1972 |
Ramunno v. Cawley
green
1 sentence2017The second exception is when the document is not being relied upon to prove the truth of its contents.”15 “Where allegations are merely conclusory, however, (i.e., without specific allegations of fact to support them) they may be deemed insufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.”16 Dismissal will not be granted if the complaint “gives general notice as to the nature of the claim asserted against the defendant.”17 A claim will not be dismissed unless it is clearly without merit, which may be either a matter of law or fact.18 Vagueness or lack of detail in the pleaded claim are insufficient | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.