Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Gordon v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation

Court of Chancery of Delaware, New Castle

April 14, 2015

Gordon
v.
National Railroad Passenger Corporation,

LAW OFFICES OF JEFFREY M. WEINER PA Attorney for the plaintiffs

Seitz vanogtrop & Green P.A George H. Seitz Attorneys For Defendant Deleau Cather And Company And The Ralph M. Parsons Company

POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP Somers S. Price Jr Attorneys For Defendant National Railroad Passenger Corporation

Dear Counsel:

This matter is before me on a Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice. An uninformed observer noting the civil action number, 10753, might think that this action had been filed earlier this year. That observer would be incorrect. This matter would not be considered young, even in the glacially-paced Chancery Court made infamous in English fiction.[1] The action number in question was assigned before the current series of civil action numbers, before electronic filing, before the tenure of the current Chancellor or his predecessor. In fact, "'[a] long procession of Chancellors has come in and gone out. . ."[2] since the Complaint was filed on April 7, 1989, during the tenure of Chancellor Allen. It was eventually case assigned to a brand-new Vice Chancellor, William B. Chandler III in those long-ago days, the eel! phone was an exotic rarity, and the Internet was not yet available to the public. My current law clerks were in diapers. Even I, in that misty and half-legendary era, could consider myself a young man.[3]

The matter was already ten years old when I was appointed a Master. It has been extensively and at times vigorously litigated, [4] and, without going into details no longer of interest to the current generation, its testudinal progress has been due to neither sloth on the part of the parties nor fault on the part of their attorneys. It is notable, however, that I have signed the attached Stipulation of Dismissal as an order of this Court twenty-five years and seven days after the Complaint was filed.

I congratulate Counsel on their efforts, proven successful after a quarter century, to navigate the regulatory and political maze necessary to a successful outcome in this matter.[5] I had hoped to do so in person, but scheduling rendered that impossible. Nonetheless, as "all partings foreshadow the great final one, [6] I should not fail to take this opportunity to salute your efforts with this brief, earnest word, hoping that it is as good as a speech.[7] A Stipulation and Order is attached. Sic omnis finis I ilium.

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

IT IS IIEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto.

through their respective counsel, that the above-captioned action is dismissed with prejudice with each party to pay its own costs and counsel tees.

SAM GLASSCOCK III VICE CHANCELLOR


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.