Poore v. Fox Hollow Enterprises
Superior Court of Delaware
1994 WL 150872 (1994)
- Written by Mary Pfotenhauer, JD
Facts
Tammy Poore (plaintiff) filed a motion to strike Fox Hollow Enterprise’s (defendant) answering brief, because the attorney who drafted it admitted he did not have a Delaware law license. Fox Hollow argued that the attorney could represent it without a Delaware license because it is a limited liability company.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Steele, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.