Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Delaware opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Delaware courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
DiGiacobbe v. Sestakgreen1 sentence2021No. 280. 76 See Ct. Ch. R. 144(a); DiGiacobbe v. Sestak, 743 A.2d 180, 184 (Del. 1999). 77 D.R.E. 502(b). 15 C. | 1 | 1 |
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Indiana Electrical Workers Pension Trust Fund IBEWgreen1 sentence2017Workers Pension Trust Fund IBEW (“Wal-Mart II”), 95 A.3d 1264, 1278 (Del. 2014) (quoting Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 389 (1981)) (internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Upjohn Co. v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2017Workers Pension Trust Fund IBEW (“Wal-Mart II”), 95 A.3d 1264, 1278 (Del. 2014) (quoting Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 389 (1981)) (internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Texaco, Inc. v. Phoenix Steel Corporationgreen1 sentence1997Delaware shared in this exposition and development of the common law, see Texaco, Inc. v. Phoenix Steel Corp., Del.Ch., 264 A.2d 523, 524 (1970), but the privilege was reaffirmed, expanded, and partially taken out of the common law by the adoption of Delaware Uniform Rule of Evidence 502 in 1980: A client has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing confidential communications made for the purpose of facilitating the rendering of professional legal services to the client (1) between himself or his representative and his lawyer or his lawyer’s representa | 1 | 1 |
In Re Grand Jury Proceedings 88-9 (Mia). Appeal of Jerald Newton, John Doegreen1 sentence1992See also United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 89 F.Supp. 357 (D.Mass.1950); In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 899 F.2d 1039, 1042 (11th Cir.1990). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. United Shoe MacHinery Corporationgreen1 sentence1992See also United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 89 F.Supp. 357 (D.Mass.1950); In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 899 F.2d 1039, 1042 (11th Cir.1990). | 1 | 1 |
Ramada Inns, Inc. v. Dow Jones & Co., Inc.green2 sentences1990Ramada Inns, supra, 523 A.2d at 971 . 1990D.R.E. 502(b) states: “A client has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing confidential communications made for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of professional legal services to the client (1) between himself or his representative and his lawyer or his lawyer’s representative, (2) between his lawyer and the lawyer’s representative, (3) by him or his representative or his lawyer or a representative of the lawyer to a lawyer or a representative of a lawyer representing another in a matter of common interest, (4) between representatives of the | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Delaware. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.