Del. C.
» Title 10 — Organization, Powers, Jurisdiction and Operation of Courts · CHAPTER 19. General Provisions Applicable to Courts and Judges · Courts and Judicial Procedure
No civil action, suit or other proceeding brought in any court of this State shall be dismissed solely on the ground that such court is without jurisdiction of the subject matter, either in the original proceeding or on appeal. Such proceeding may be transferred to an appropriate court for hearing and determination, provided that the party otherwise adversely affected, within 60 days after the order denying the jurisdiction of the first court has become final, files in that court a written election of transfer, discharges all costs accrued in the first court, and makes the usual deposit for costs in the second court. All or part of the papers filed, or copies thereof, and a transcript of the entries, in the court where the proceeding was originally instituted shall be delivered in accordance with the rules or special orders of such court, by the prothonotary, clerk, or register of that court to the prothonotary, clerk or register of the court to which the proceeding is transferred. The latter court shall thereupon entertain such applications in the proceeding as conform to law and to the rules and practice of such court, and may by rule or special order provide for amendments in pleadings and for all other matters concerning the course of procedure for hearing and determining the cause as justice may require. For the purpose of laches or of any statute of limitations, the time of bringing the proceeding shall be deemed to be the time when it was brought in the first court. This section shall be liberally construed to permit and facilitate transfers of proceedings between the courts of this State in the interests of justice.
Code 1935,
§
4235A;
46 Del. Laws, c. 255;
10 Del. C. 1953,
§
1901;
60 Del. Laws, c. 182,
§
1;
Notes of Decisions
Gregorovich v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours, 602 F. Supp. 2d 511 (D. Del. 2009).
· cites it 2× “10 Del. C. § 1902. The statute is liberally applied to achieve its purpose ’to permit and facilitate transfers of proceedings between the courts of Delaware in the interests of justice.”
Mann v. Oppenheimer & Co., 517 A.2d 1056 (Del. 1986).
“However, we note for the guidance of the trial court that if the question primarily comes down to the adequacy of plaintiffs’ legal remedy, and no facts support a claim for equitable relief, the result is not dismissal, but removal to the Superior Court pursuant to 10 Del.C. §…”
Reeder v. Wagner, 974 A.2d 858 (Del. 2009).
“(3) After reviewing the defendants' respective motions to dismiss the complaint, the Court of Chancery concluded that the remedies sought in the complaint were legal in nature and, therefore, transferred the case to the Superior Court pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 1902. In the…”
Meding v. Hurd, 607 F. Supp. 1088 (D. Del. 1985).
“There is simply no authority for the proposition that 10 Del.C. § 1902 bars a plaintiff from separately prosecuting claims for one form of relief in one state court after obtaining a judgment in another state court.”
Wilmington Trust Co. v. Barry, 397 A.2d 135 (Del. Super. Ct. 1979).
“, for a jury trial) pursuant to 10 Del.C. § 1902. Among the factors noted in Getty as weighing on why Chancery should continue to exercise jurisdiction are: to resolve factual issues; to avoid multiplicity of suits; to promote judicial efficiency; to do full justice; to avoid…”
Harman v. Masoneilan Int'l, Inc., 418 A.2d 1004 (Del. Ch. 1980).
“The motion of defendants to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action will be granted on notice subject to the right of the plaintiff to remove this case to a court of competent jurisdiction under the provisions of 10 Del.C. § 1902.…”
Revolution Rentals DE, LLC v. Pomerleau (Del. Super. Ct. 2022).
· cites it 20× “” 4 Upon reargument, however, the JP Court concluded that “the demand for a jury trial has removed the case from Justice of the Peace Court jurisdiction” and that it could therefore transfer the case to Superior Court pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 1902,5 which allows cases to be…”
Taylor v. George (Del. Super. Ct. 2020).
· cites it 6× “Plaintiff now moves to transfer this action to the Industrial Accident Board (“IAB”) pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 1902 (“Section 1902”) or Superior Court Rule of Civil Procedure 15 (“Rule 15”).”
Taylor v. George (Del. Super. Ct. 2020).
· cites it 6× “Plaintiff now moves to transfer this action to the Industrial Accident Board (“IAB”) pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 1902 (“Section 1902”) or Superior Court Rule of Civil Procedure 15 (“Rule 15”).”
Citizens Against Solar Pollution v. Kent Cnty. (Del. Super. Ct. 2023).
· cites it 6× “17 On March 29, 2023, Plaintiffs also filed a “Motion” for Writ of Certiorari and requested a stay to ensure that Defendants would not act upon the Levy Court’s grant of the conditional use permit.”
Huggins v. Benson (Del. Super. Ct. 2024).
· cites it 6× “On August 16, 2024, the Court heard argument on Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and on Defendant’s Motion to Transfer the Defenses and Counterclaims to the Court of Chancery Pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 1902. For the reasons set forth in this Order, Plaintiff’s…”
Toomey v. Fam. Dollar Stores (Del. Super. Ct. 2026).
· cites it 6× “Where, as here, an appeal from the IAB has been filed in the wrong county, the proper remedy is transfer, not dismissal, provided the requirements of 10 Del. C. §1902 are satisfied.5 Accordingly, jurisdiction in the Superior Court for Kent County is DENIED.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.