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.
13 Delaware opinions name it 3 courts 2012–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Edgar v. Mite Corp.green2 sentences2026Jan. 28, 2015). 103 See Restatement, supra, § 188 cmt. e. 104 See Edgar v. MITE Corp., 457 U.S. 624, 645 (1982) (“The internal affairs doctrine is a conflict of laws principle which recognizes that only one State should have the authority to regulate a corporation’s internal affairs—matters peculiar to 37 apply, the Delaware Forum Clause will govern, and the Partnership Agreement will receive uniform treatment. 2020The United States Supreme Court then described the internal affairs doctrine as follows: The internal affairs doctrine is a conflict of laws principle which recognizes that only one State should have the authority to regulate a corporation’s internal affairs—matters peculiar to the relationships among or between the corporation and its current officers, directors, and shareholders—because otherwise a corporation could be faced with conflicting demands.107 As applied to the Illinois law, the Court found that the internal affairs doctrine was “of little use to the State in this context” because | 4 | 8 |
Barrett v. Stategreen2 sentences2021In contrast, “[t]he modern approach indicates that the laws of the jurisdiction which had the most significant relationship to the transaction and parties would control the substantive legal questions.” Id. (citations omitted). 34 Reese, 2004 WL 1320900 , at *2. 35 Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London v. Chemtura Corp. [hereinafter “Chemtura”], 160 A.3d 457, 465 (Del. 2017). 36 D.I. 35, at 12-13. 9 rendered should govern disputes concerning its interpretation or effect.” 37 Sullivan responds that “Richetti did not rule that the location of the divorce is a dispositive factor,” but only that 2017D (Pledge Agreement) §§ 14, 16 (“This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York” and Charney consents to jurisdiction in New York). 74 Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London v. Chemtura Corp., 160 A.3d 457, 464 (Del. 2017) (citation omitted) (the first of three components in choice of law analysis is “determining if the parties made an effective choice of law through their contract”). 75 Ministers & Missionaries Benefit Bd. v. Snow, 45 N.E.3d 917, 918 (N.Y. 2015), rearg. denied, 47 N.E.3d 779 (N.Y. 2016) (holding that the inclusion of a “ | 2 | 2 |
Vantagepoint Venture Partners 1996 v. Examen, Inc.green2 sentences2020So too with the Non-Solicitation Provision: It applies “during the Unit Holder’s employment or service period with the 9 See Edgar v. MITE Corp., 457 U.S. 624, 645 (1982) (“The internal affairs doctrine is a conflict of laws principle which recognizes that only one State should have the authority to regulate a corporation’s internal affairs—matters peculiar to the relationships among or between the corporation and its current officers, directors, and shareholders— because otherwise a corporation could be faced with conflicting demands.”) (citing Restatement, supra, § 302 cmt. b.); Salzberg v. 2020So too with the Non-Solicitation Provision: It applies “during the Unit Holder’s employment or service period with the 9 See Edgar v. MITE Corp., 457 U.S. 624, 645 (1982) (“The internal affairs doctrine is a conflict of laws principle which recognizes that only one State should have the authority to regulate a corporation’s internal affairs—matters peculiar to the relationships among or between the corporation and its current officers, directors, and shareholders— because otherwise a corporation could be faced with conflicting demands.”) (citing Restatement, supra, § 302 cmt. b.); Salzberg v. | 2 | 2 |
OSI Systems, Inc. v. Instrumentarium Corp.green1 sentence2021Since the Policies are silent on choice of law, I first “compare the laws of the competing jurisdictions to determine whether the laws actually conflict,” or would “produce different results when applied to the factors of the case.”30 Pennsylvania has a revocation-on-divorce 27 OSI Sys., Inc. v. Instrumentarium Corp., 892 A.2d 1086, 1090 (Del. | 1 | 1 |
The Ministers and Missionaries Benefit Board v. Leon Snow v. The Estate of Clark Fleshergreen1 sentence2017D (Pledge Agreement) §§ 14, 16 (“This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York” and Charney consents to jurisdiction in New York). 74 Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London v. Chemtura Corp., 160 A.3d 457, 464 (Del. 2017) (citation omitted) (the first of three components in choice of law analysis is “determining if the parties made an effective choice of law through their contract”). 75 Ministers & Missionaries Benefit Bd. v. Snow, 45 N.E.3d 917, 918 (N.Y. 2015), rearg. denied, 47 N.E.3d 779 (N.Y. 2016) (holding that the inclusion of a “ | 1 | 1 |
Deuley v. DynCorp International, Inc.green1 sentence2016Del. 2010) (forecasting that Delaware courts would require the existence of an actual conflict before embarking on a conflict of laws analysis)). 79 Deuley v. DynCorp Int’l., Inc., 8 A.3d 1156, 1161 (Del. 2010). 80 State Farm Gen. | 1 | 1 |
D'ANGELO v. Petroleos Mexicanosgreen1 sentence2014See D'Angelo v. Petroleos Mexicanos, 331 A.2d 388, 391-92 (Del.1974) (citing to an earlier version of the Restatement for the proposition that the act of state doctrine is similar to a conflict of laws principle: "It is ‘similar to those conflict of laws principles that direct the choice of a foreign law, or apply the principles of res judicata to foreign judgments, or give faith and credit to foreign legislation or to foreign judgments, or dismiss the proceedings on the basis of forum non conveniens.' ” (quoting Restatement (Second) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States § 41, emts | 1 | 1 |
CTS Corp. v. Dynamics Corp. of Americagreen2 sentences2013See CTS Corp. v. Dynamics Corp., 481 U.S. 69, 90 , 107 S.Ct. 1637 , 95 L.Ed.2d 67 (1987) ("[A] corporation — except in the rarest situations — is organized under, and governed by, the law of a single jurisdiction, traditionally the corporate law of the State of its incorporation.”); Edgar v. MITE Corp., 457 U.S. 624, 645 , 102 S.Ct. 2629 , 73 L.Ed.2d 269 (1982) ("The internal affairs doctrine is a conflict of laws principle which recognizes that only one State should have the authority to regulate a corporation's internal affairs — matters peculiar to the relationships among or between the cor 2013See CTS Corp. v. Dynamics Corp., 481 U.S. 69, 90 , 107 S.Ct. 1637 , 95 L.Ed.2d 67 (1987) ("[A] corporation — except in the rarest situations — is organized under, and governed by, the law of a single jurisdiction, traditionally the corporate law of the State of its incorporation.”); Edgar v. MITE Corp., 457 U.S. 624, 645 , 102 S.Ct. 2629 , 73 L.Ed.2d 269 (1982) ("The internal affairs doctrine is a conflict of laws principle which recognizes that only one State should have the authority to regulate a corporation's internal affairs — matters peculiar to the relationships among or between the cor | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Delaware. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
National U. Fire Ins. Co., Etc. v. Rlc Corp.
green
1 sentence2021In contrast, “[t]he modern approach indicates that the laws of the jurisdiction which had the most significant relationship to the transaction and parties would control the substantive legal questions.” Id. (citations omitted). 34 Reese, 2004 WL 1320900 , at *2. 35 Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London v. Chemtura Corp. [hereinafter “Chemtura”], 160 A.3d 457, 465 (Del. 2017). 36 D.I. 35, at 12-13. 9 rendered should govern disputes concerning its interpretation or effect.” 37 Sullivan responds that “Richetti did not rule that the location of the divorce is a dispositive factor,” but only that | 1 | 2021–2021 |
In re Koziol
neutral
1 sentence2017D (Pledge Agreement) §§ 14, 16 (“This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York” and Charney consents to jurisdiction in New York). 74 Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London v. Chemtura Corp., 160 A.3d 457, 464 (Del. 2017) (citation omitted) (the first of three components in choice of law analysis is “determining if the parties made an effective choice of law through their contract”). 75 Ministers & Missionaries Benefit Bd. v. Snow, 45 N.E.3d 917, 918 (N.Y. 2015), rearg. denied, 47 N.E.3d 779 (N.Y. 2016) (holding that the inclusion of a “ | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State of São Paulo of Federative Republic of Brazil v. American Tobacco Co.
green
1 sentence2015Tobacco Co., 919 A.2d 1116 (Del. 2007)). 13 with a conflict of laws analysis. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Kamen v. Kemper Financial Services, Inc.
green
2 sentences2013Servs., Inc., 500 U.S. 90, 92 , 111 S.Ct. 1711 , 114 L.Ed.2d 152 (1991) (holding that in a derivative suit "the scope of the demand requirement embodies the incorporating State’s allocation of governing powers within the corporation”); Burks v. Lasker, 441 U.S. 471, 478 , 99 S.Ct. 1831 , 60 L.Ed.2d 404 (1979) ("|T]he first place one must look to determine the powers of corporate directors is in the relevant State’s corporation law.” (citations omitted)). .Joseph A. Grundfest & Kristen A. Savelle, The Brouhaha over Intra-Corporate Forum Selection Provisions: A Legal, Economic, and Political Ana 2013Servs., Inc., 500 U.S. 90, 92 , 111 S.Ct. 1711 , 114 L.Ed.2d 152 (1991) (holding that in a derivative suit "the scope of the demand requirement embodies the incorporating State’s allocation of governing powers within the corporation”); Burks v. Lasker, 441 U.S. 471, 478 , 99 S.Ct. 1831 , 60 L.Ed.2d 404 (1979) ("|T]he first place one must look to determine the powers of corporate directors is in the relevant State’s corporation law.” (citations omitted)). .Joseph A. Grundfest & Kristen A. Savelle, The Brouhaha over Intra-Corporate Forum Selection Provisions: A Legal, Economic, and Political Ana | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Burks v. Lasker
green
2 sentences2013Servs., Inc., 500 U.S. 90, 92 , 111 S.Ct. 1711 , 114 L.Ed.2d 152 (1991) (holding that in a derivative suit "the scope of the demand requirement embodies the incorporating State’s allocation of governing powers within the corporation”); Burks v. Lasker, 441 U.S. 471, 478 , 99 S.Ct. 1831 , 60 L.Ed.2d 404 (1979) ("|T]he first place one must look to determine the powers of corporate directors is in the relevant State’s corporation law.” (citations omitted)). .Joseph A. Grundfest & Kristen A. Savelle, The Brouhaha over Intra-Corporate Forum Selection Provisions: A Legal, Economic, and Political Ana 2013Servs., Inc., 500 U.S. 90, 92 , 111 S.Ct. 1711 , 114 L.Ed.2d 152 (1991) (holding that in a derivative suit "the scope of the demand requirement embodies the incorporating State’s allocation of governing powers within the corporation”); Burks v. Lasker, 441 U.S. 471, 478 , 99 S.Ct. 1831 , 60 L.Ed.2d 404 (1979) ("|T]he first place one must look to determine the powers of corporate directors is in the relevant State’s corporation law.” (citations omitted)). .Joseph A. Grundfest & Kristen A. Savelle, The Brouhaha over Intra-Corporate Forum Selection Provisions: A Legal, Economic, and Political Ana | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.