Court Rules Choice Of Law Provision Takes Precedence Over Internal Affairs ...
To say that the Delaware courts and bar are very fond of the internal affairs doctrine is about as controversial as wearing white before Labor Day. If you have any doubts about the sacred status of the doctrine in Delaware, I refer you to the Delaware Supreme Courtâs decision in Vantagepoint Venture Partners 1996 v. Examen, Inc., 871 A.2d 1108 (2005).
While California does not go so far as to deny the existence or validity of the internal affairs doctrine, it is far less rigid in its devotion to it. For example, Corporations Code § 2115 imposes numerous provisions of the California General Corporation Law on foreign corporations to the exclusion of the law of the jurisdiction in which they are incorporated when more than half of the corporationâs voting stock is held by California residents, and the corporation conducts a majority of its business in the state (as measured by assets, payroll, and sales). A California Court of Appeal has held that § 2115 does not violate the full faith and credit clauses of the U.S. Constitution; the commerce clause of U.S. Constitution, due process, or the contract clause of either the U.S. or California Constitutions. Wilson v. Louisiana-Pacific Resources, Inc., 138 Cal. App. 3d 216 (1982). Independent of Section 2115, California courts have applied the following provisions of the California Corporations Code to foreign corporations...
Please see full article below for more information.
Please contact Keith Paul Bishop at Allen Matkins for more information kbishop@allenmatkins.com http://www.calcorporatelaw.Delaware Superior Court - News
If you have any doubts about the sacred status of the doctrine in Delaware, I refer you to the Delaware Supreme Court's decision in Vantagepoint Venture Partners 1996 v. Examen, Inc., 871 A.2d 1108 (2005). While California does not go so far as to deny
A plan to demolish part of the historic H. Fletcher Brown mansion in the Cool Spring section of the city — to create new senior housing at the site — has been shot down by the Delaware Supreme Court on technical grounds. The state's highest court
WILMINGTON, Del. — A Superior Court judge on Thursday set a Jan. 20 execution date for a killer who has exhausted his state and federal appeals and could be the next inmate to be executed in Delaware. But even before Judge James Vaughn Jr. ordered the
New Jersey Superior Court Judge Stephan C. Hansbury in Morristown granted their requests Dec. 23, saying they couldn't be sued in New Jersey. Hansbury also dismissed Institutional Credit Partners LLC. All three firms are based in New York.
A probation department spokeswoman says Adam Wheeler was sentenced Friday at Middlesex Superior Court. Prosecutors say the 25-year-old Wheeler got into Harvard and obtained about $45000 in financial aid by falsely claiming he attended elite schools,
Delaware Superior Court Excludes Expert Testimony, Again: Collins ...
, C.A. No. 07C-07-070-JAP (Del. Super. Ct. Oct. 7, 2011), in which Judge Parkins of the Delaware Superior Court excluded the plaintiff’s causation expert on the grounds that his methodology was unreliable and because he did not possess the requisite expertise in the relevant field. The Delaware Superior Court in Collins v. Ashland Inc ., et al., No. 06C-03-339 BEN (Del. Super. Ct. Oct. 21, 2011) (Jurden, J.) excluded two causation experts on the grounds that they were unable to establish “a causal nexus between exposure to Defendants’ products and Mr. Collins’ disease. . . .” (Opinion at 10.) (Read full opinion here .) In addition, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants because Plaintiff was unable to satisfy her burden of proof without the excluded expert testimony.
The plaintiff, Theresa Collins, is the surviving spouse of Bruce Collins. Ms. Collins alleged that Mr. Collins “contracted Acute Myelogenous Leukemia (‘AML’)” during his career as a painter “as a proximate result of his exposure to products containing benzene manufactured by Defendants.” ( Id. at 4) (emphasis added).
Noting that “[t]he ‘pertinent inquiry’ in the case . . . is whether the time period during which Mr. Collins was exposed to the Defendants’ products [i.e., the 9-month period in 1984] was sufficient to establish a causal nexus between the exposure and Mr. Collins’ AML,” the court concluded that “Plaintiff’s expert opinions are deficient because they do not state that the decedent’s nine-month period of exposure while at Rosing Paints proximately caused his AML.” ( Id. at 11.) The court opined that “[t]his failure to link Mr.