James B. Carey

The case involved a personal injury suit by Joseph Dillon against General Motors and a car dealer for negligence and breach of warranty after he was injured in an accident allegedly caused by a defective steering column in his new Pontiac Firebird. A jury awarded Dillon $65,000, and the defendants appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in allowing the case to reach the jury under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and in denying their motions for directed verdict or judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The court affirmed the verdict, reasoning that res ipsa loquitur applied because Dillon showed something went wrong with the steering mechanism without identifying a specific defect, and the defendants' expert testimony about the column's design and post-accident condition did not constitute undisputed physical facts that conclusively rebutted any inference of negligence or malfunction. The court noted that the expert had not inspected the full vehicle and that the evidence left room for the jury to find a possible steering defect.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved an appeal from the Superior Court's reversal of a zoning variance granted by the Wilmington Board of Adjustment, allowing property owners to build a 142-space parking facility on portions of land zoned R-1 residential to support two apartment towers planned for adjacent property zoned R-5-B. The Board had approved the variance based on exceptional conditions and hardship, but the Superior Court found insufficient evidence and reversed it. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the reversal, holding that under precedent from Searles v. Darling, a variance requires hardship inherent in the specific property for which it is sought, not hardship arising from the intended use of neighboring property. The court reasoned that the appellants' need for parking stemmed from their apartment development plans rather than conditions unique to the R-1 lots, making the variance improper without legislative change to the zoning ordinance.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case involved credit card holders who sued three Delaware banks in the Court of Chancery, alleging they were charged interest exceeding the legal limit under 6 Del.C. § 2304(b) and seeking recovery of triple the excess interest or $500 per borrower. The banks moved to dismiss for lack of equity jurisdiction, arguing an adequate remedy existed at law in Superior Court. The Court of Chancery initially retained the case to consider whether a class action under Chancery Rule 23 could prevent a multiplicity of suits, but the Delaware Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Rule is only procedural and does not expand equity jurisdiction. The court reasoned that Delaware strictly maintains the law-equity distinction, that common legal questions can be resolved through a few Superior Court actions establishing precedent, and that no imminent multiplicity of suits was shown.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved an appeal from the Court of Chancery's ruling that Delaware Trust Company did not breach its fiduciary duties as trustee under William DuPont Sr.'s will by participating in the 1928 Hopeton exchange. The transaction transferred voting shares of Delaware Trust stock held in the residuary trust to a new holding company controlled by the life tenants (the testator's children), in exchange for non-voting shares, while the trustee retained beneficial ownership. The Supreme Court reversed the grant of summary judgment, holding that the exchange improperly separated voting control from the trust's economic interests in a manner that favored the life tenants over the remaindermen (grandchildren) without adequate protection for the latter. The court reasoned that the trustee had a duty under the will and fiduciary principles to safeguard the remaindermen's interests impartially, and the facts raised a triable issue as to whether that duty was fulfilled. The matter was remanded for further proceedings, including consideration of affirmative defenses.

propertyfamily law

This case was a derivative stockholders’ action in which a shareholder of Iroquois Industries challenged a transaction negotiated by the company’s president with Scotten, Dillon Company on grounds that the president had an undisclosed personal financial interest. The lower court awarded the plaintiff counsel fees after finding a triable issue of fraud under 8 Del.C. § 152 and a reasonable hope of success, even though the deal had been canceled. On appeal, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the $25,000 fee award, holding that the record supported the allowance of fees and that the amount was reasonable under the circumstances.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case arose from settlement agreements in which Noah Dietrich promised Howard Hughes and Hughes Tool Company not to disclose confidential information or publish any biographical writings about them; after Dietrich wrote a book titled Howard, The Amazing Mr. Hughes that was published by Fawcett Publications, Hughes Tool Company and Rosemont Enterprises sued in Delaware Chancery Court for breach of contract and inducement of breach, seeking damages plus a mandatory injunction requiring surrender of the manuscript and assignment of the copyright. The Court of Chancery dismissed the complaints for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, concluding that the plaintiffs had an adequate remedy at law. The Delaware Supreme Court reversed, holding that equity jurisdiction was proper because the requested relief included assignment of copyright—an incorporeal right distinct from the physical manuscript that cannot be obtained through legal actions such as replevin or detinue—and that only a court of equity could grant complete relief through a mandatory injunction compelling transfer of that unique interest.

business & regulatoryprocedureproperty