Lucas v. Christiana Skating Center, Ltd.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that the plaintiff had standing to assert a direct claim
• declining to recognize an action in tort for spoliation of evidence after noting that most jurisdictions have reached a similar conclusion
• “Although we conclude that the Parnés complaint directly challenges the Bally merger, it does not necessarily follow that the complaint adequately states a claim for relief.”
• “Although we conclude that the Parnes complaint directly challenges the Bally merger, it does not necessarily follow that the complaint adequately states a claim for relief.”
• “Courts in Delaware recognize the general rule that ‘where a litigant intentionally suppresses or destroys pertinent evidence, an inference arises that such evidence would be unfavorable to his case.’” (quoting Collins v. Throckmorton, 425 A.2d 146, 150 (Del. Super. 1980)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).