SINCOCK v. ROMAN

Civ. A. No. 2470.

232 F.Supp. 844 (1964)

Richard SINCOCK et al., Plaintiffs, v. Mabel V. ROMAN et al., Defendants.

United States District Court D. Delaware.

August 11, 1964.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Vincent A. Theisen, and Victor F. Battaglia, Wilmington, Del., for plaintiffs.

David P. Buckson, Atty. Gen., Daniel L. Herrmann, Frank O'Donnell, Wilmington, Del., Max Terry, and James H. Hughes, III, Dover, Del., for defendants.

Bruce M. Stargatt, Wilmington, Del., amicus curiae.

Before BIGGS, Circuit Judge, and WRIGHT and LAYTON, District Judges.


PER CURIAM.

The defendants have filed a motion and a supplementary motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56(b), Fed. R.Civ.Proc., 28 U.S.C. They also have made an oral motion to dismiss the complaint, the plaintiffs having completed the presentation of evidence of their case in chief, on this phase of the case.

We will deny these motions. A motion for summary judgment cannot be granted unless it is clear that there is no genuine issue of material fact...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases