green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 7×
51.4 score
G Cite
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989
2007
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 32 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York v. Navarro
the oftrepeated test of the appealability of an interlocutory order is that it must determine a substantial issue and establish a legal right.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Hansen v. Brandywine Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, Inc.
the oftrepeated test of the appealability of an interlocutory order is that it must determine a substantial issue and establish a legal right.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Northrup Grumman Innovation Systems, Inc. v. Zurich American Insurance Co.
the oft- repeated test of the appealability of an interlocutory order is that it must determine a substantial issue and establish a legal right.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
In re Port of Wilmington Gantry Crane Litigation
the oft-repeated test of the appealability of an interlocutory order is that it must determine a substantial issue and establish a legal right.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Ms. Mary Giddings Wenske v. Blue Bell Creameries, Inc.
generally speaking, the substantive element of the appealability of an interlocutory order must relate to the merits of the case . . . .
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Western Standard, LLC v. SourceHOV Holdings, Inc. and Pangea Acquisitions, Inc.
generally speaking, the substantive element of the appealability of an interlocutory order must relate to the merits of the case . . . .
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
In re Fitbit, Inc. Stockholder Derivative Litigation
generally speaking, the substantive element of the appealability of an interlocutory order must relate to the merits of the case . . . .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Invictus Special Situations Master I, L.P. v. Invictus Global Management, LLC
July 22, 2008) (quoting Casteldo v. Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Co., 301 A.2d 87, 87 (Del. 1973)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Invictus Special Situations Master I, L.P. v. Invictus Global Management, LLC
July 22, 2008) (quoting Casteldo v. Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Co., 301 A.2d 87, 87 (Del. 1973)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Invictus Special Situations Master I, L.P. v. Invictus Global Management, LLC
July 22, 2008) (quoting Casteldo v. Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Co., 301 A.2d 87, 87 (Del. 1973)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Norwest Venture Partners XIV, LP v. Michael Andreacchi
July 22, 2008) (quoting Casteldo v. Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Co., 301 A.2d 87, 87 (Del. 1973)) (internal quotation marks omitted). 10 See Stewart v. Wilmington Tr.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Mattel, Inc. v. XL Insurance American, Inc.
July 22, 2008) (citing Castaldo v. Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Co. Inc., 301 A.2d 87, 87 (Del. 1973)). 15 Id. (citing Donald J.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA v. FedEx Corp.
Ct. R. 42(b)(iii) provides that the trial court should consider whether: (A) The interlocutory order involves a question of law resolved for the first time in this State; (B) The decisions of the trial courts are conflicting upon the question of law; (C) The question of law relates to the constitutionality, construction, or application of a statute of this State, which has not been, but should be, settled by this Court in advance of an appeal from a final order; (D) The interlocutory order has sustained the controverted jurisdiction of the trial court; (E) The interlocutory order has reversed …
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Charlie Javice v. JP Morgan Chase Bank
Castaldo v. Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Co., 301 A.2d 87, 87 (Del. 1973); TowerHill Wealth Mgmt., LLC v. Bander Fam.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
JB and Margaret Blaugrund Foundation v. Guggenheim Funds Investment Advisors, LLC
Ct. R. 42(b)(ii) (instructing that interlocutory appeals should be “exceptional, not routine”); see also Levinson, 385 A.2d at 720 (Rule 42 “is intended to minimize two highly undesirable problems . . . the fragmentation of a case and a delay in its final disposition.”); Castaldo v. Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Co., 301 A.2d 87, 87 (Del. 1973). 47 See Supr.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Elutions Capital Ventures S.à.r.l. v. John Betts
Ch. 2003). 35 Castaldo v. Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Co., 301 A.2d 87, 87 (Del. 1973). 36 Supr.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Fortis Advisors, LLC v. Dematic Corp.
First, the “reckless or intentional destruction” standard 18 Def.’s Appl. at 2. 19 Lummus Company v. Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., 243 A.2d 718, 719 (Del. 1968). 20 Castaldo v. Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Co., Inc., 301 A.2d 87, 87-88 (Del. 1973) (citing Lummus Company, 243 A.2d at 719 ). 21 Pepsico, Inc. v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of Asbury Park, 261 A.2d 520, 521 (Del. 1969). 7 applies when the Court imposes adverse inferences, not evidentiary presumptions.22 Second, Dematic’s failure to produce was intentional, as the Court explained in its oral ruling granting sanctions.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Daniel J. Riskin, M.D. v. Brenton Burns
Castaldo v. Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Co., 301 A.2d 87, 87 (Del. 1973); TowerHill Wealth Mgmt., LLC v. Bander Fam.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Robert Elburn v. Robert C. Albanese and Investors Bancorp, Inc.
Ct. R. 42(b)(iii)(H). 15 Castaldo v. Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Co., Inc., 301 A.2d 87, 87 (Del. 1973) (“Generally speaking, the substantive element of the appealability of an interlocutory order 4 Defendants’ compensation awards actually resulted from an improper quid pro quo arrangement.16 It simply concluded that Plaintiff’s Complaint, backed by well-pled particularized facts, stated that such an agreement existed and these allegations supported a finding of demand futility.17 The Supreme Court has previously found interlocutory review to be inappropriate where “no final determinat…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re TransPerfect Global, Inc.
Sept. 25, 2019) (quoting Castaldo v. Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Co., Inc., 301 A.2d 87, 87 (Del. 1973)). 35 See Campbell v. Eagle Force Holdings, LLC, 213 A.3d 88 (Del. 2019) (denying motion for certification because finding a party in contempt of an interlocutory order “did not ‘speak[] directly to the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims’”) (quoting Scott Sider v. Hertz Glob.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
ITG Brands, LLC v. Reynolds American, Inc.
Sept. 25, 2019) (quoting Castaldo v. Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Co., Inc., 301 A.2d 87, 87 (Del. 1973)). 11 REJV5 AWH Orlando, LLC v. AWH Orlando Member, LLC, 2018 WL 1109650 , at *3 (Del.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
ITG Brands, LLC v. Reynolds American, Inc.
Sept. 25, 2019) (quoting Castaldo v. Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Co., Inc., 301 A.2d 87, 87 (Del. 1973)). 11 REJV5 AWH Orlando, LLC v. AWH Orlando Member, LLC, 2018 WL 1109650 , at *3 (Del.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Delaware, Department of Finance v. Univar, Inc.
Sys., 191 A.3d 292 (Del. 2018) (“[W]e decline to accept an interlocutory appeal to consider whether to second-guess [the Court of Chancery’s] view that it was prudent and efficient to stay this action.”); Castaldo v. Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Co., Inc., 301 A.2d 87, 87 (Del. 1973) (noting a substantial issue of material importance is one that “relate[s] to the merits of the case”). 12 Tr. 47. 13 Id. 5 5.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Bay Hills Emerging Partners I, L.P.
Ct. R. 42(b)(iii). 7 A substantial issue of material importance is one that “relate[s] to the merits of the case.” Castaldo v. Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Co., Inc., 301 A.2d 87, 87 (Del. 1973). 8 Appl. 5. 9 McWane Cast Iron Pipe Corp. v. McDowell-Wellman Eng.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
The Honorable Karen Weldin Stewart, CIR-ML, Insurance Commissioner v. Wilmington Trust SP Services, Inc.
Oct. 6, 2014) (citing Castaldo v. Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Co., 301 A.2d 87, 87 (Del. 1973)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Harry Pontone v. Milso Industries Corporation
July 5, 2010) (“An interlocutory ruling determines a „substantial legal issue‟ for purposes of Rule 42(b) if it „relate[s] to the merits of the case,‟ not to collateral matters such as discovery.”) (quoting Castaldo v. Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Co., 301 A.2d 87, 87 (Del. 1983)); Sprint Nextel Corp. v. iPCS, Inc., 2008 WL 2861717 , at *1 (Del.
cited
Cited "see"
State of Rhode Island Office of the General Treasurer, on behalf of the Employees' Retirement System of Rhode Island v. Paramount Global
July 22, 2008); accord Castaldo v. Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Co., 301 A.2d 87, 87 (Del. 1973). 23 See Liggett Gp., Inc. v. Ace Prop. & Cas.
cited
Cited "see"
In re Sears Hometown and Outlet Stores, Inc. Stockholder Litigation
July 22, 2008); accord Castaldo v. Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Co., 301 A.2d 87, 87 (Del. 1973). 27 JB & Margaret Blaugrund Found. v. Guggenheim Funds Inv.
discussed
Cited "see"
Palkon v. Maffei
July 22, 2008); accord Castaldo v. Pittsburgh–Des Moines Steel Co., 301 A.2d 87, 87 (Del. 1973). 16 Levinson v. Conlon, 385 A.2d 717, 720 (Del. 1978). 17 JB & Margaret Blaugrund Found. v. Guggenheim Funds Inv.
cited
Cited "see"
Goldstein v. Denner
July 22, 2008); accord Castaldo v. Pittsburgh–Des Moines Steel Co., 301 A.2d 87, 87 (Del. 1973). 86 Crowhorn v. Nationwide Mut.
cited
Cited "see"
Sunder Energy, LLC v. Tyler Jackson
July 22, 2008); accord Castaldo v. Pittsburgh–Des Moines Steel Co., 301 A.2d 87, 87 (Del. 1973).
cited
Cited "see"
In re Delaware Public Schools Litigation
July 22, 2008); accord Castaldo v. Pittsburgh–Des Moines Steel Co., 301 A.2d 87, 87 (Del. 1973).
Ellanetta CASTALDO, as Widow of Charles J. Castaldo, and as Administratrix of the Estate of Charles J. Castaldo, Deceased, Plaintiffs Below, Appellants,
v.
PITTSBURGH-DES MOINES STEEL COMPANY, INC., a Pennsylvania Corporation, Defendant Below, Appellee
v.
PITTSBURGH-DES MOINES STEEL COMPANY, INC., a Pennsylvania Corporation, Defendant Below, Appellee
Supreme Court of Delaware.
Jan 16, 1973.
William E. Taylor, Jr., Wilmington, for plaintiffs below, appellants., F. Alton Tybout and Stephen P. Casa-rino, of Tybout, Redfearn & Schnee, Wilmington, for defendant below, appellee.
Carey, Herrmann, Short.
Cited by 36 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Superior Court of Delaware (4) · Court of Chancery of Delaware (3)
HERRMANN, Justice:
In this negligence action, the plaintiffs served interrogatories upon the defendant as part of their discovery. The defendant incorrectly answered certain of the interrogatories. This, according to the plaintiffs, resulted in useless action on the plaintiffs’ side of the case and substantial loss of time and money by the plaintiffs and their counsel. The plaintiffs thereupon moved for an immediate allowance of costs, including reasonable counsel fees, to compensate them for the alleged undue waste. The Superior Court denied the motion and this appeal followed.
This case has not been tried or otherwise finally decided upon its merits. The question is whether the interlocutory order involved is appealable. We think not.
The oft-repeated test of the appealability of an interlocutory order is that it must determine a substantial issue and establish a legal right. Generally speaking, the substantive element of the appealability of an interlocutory order must relate to the merits of the case, not to matters of discovery. Pepsico, Inc. v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of Asbury Park, Del.Supr., 261 A.2d 520 (1969). This is essential to the limitation of appeals and the avoidance of fragmentation of cases necessary to the[*88] efficient operation of our system. See Lummus Company v. Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., Del.Supr., 243 A.2d 718 (1968).
There was no showing here that the expenditures involved were so “burdensome” or “disproportionate” as to be violative of due process within the Pepsico exceptions.
This case was filed in 1968; it should be moved along to final judgment without further delay. If the plaintiffs have been wronged by the ruling of which they here complain, they may have review after final judgment, even if successful, upon application for assessment of the subject expenditures as reimbursable costs of the case.
Appeal dismissed.