v. Tallman, Del.Ch., 773 A.2d 1005 (2000). 11 . Dura Pharm. v. Scandipharm, Inc., Del.Ch., 713 A.2d 925, 928 (1998). 12 . Del.Supr., 263 A.2d 281, 283 (1970). 13 . Id., at 283. 14 . Dura Pharm., 713 A.2d at 928. 15 . Several cases have discussed what is a simultaneous filing. See HFTP Investments, L.L.C. v. Ariad Pharm., Del.Ch., C.A.No. 17501, Jacobs, V.C. (December 9, 1999) (action treated as simultaneously filed when second action was filed thirteen minutes after the first); Ademo v. New Castle County, Del. Supr., 679 A.2d 455, 458 (1996) (approving the Court of Chancery’s actions in treating a stay as filed simultaneously when the race-to-the courthouse was won by minutes); Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Cyrix Corp., Del.Ch., C.A.No. 13288, Jacobs, V.C., 1994 WL 96983 (March 22, 1994) (<HOLDING>); In Re Chambers Development Co., Inc.
holding that the burden is on the plaintiff holding that the burden rests upon the party seeking benefits to prove the injury sustained was the result of an accident arising out of and in the course of employment and the rule of liberal construction is not a substitute for the claimants burden of establishing his claim by a preponderance of the evidence holding that in a race to the courthouse that is won by five hours should not without more impose upon the defendant the significant burden of inconvenience and hardship that might result in a denial of a stay that would otherwise be granted holding that the unwarranted hardship standard was less restrictive than the constitutional taking standard and meant the denial of the reasonable and significant use of the property holding that the burden is upon the state under the applicable federal rules of evidence