13 Delaware opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2023 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
Morgan v. Sundance, Inc.green2 sentences2023The resulting inquiry would turn solely on the employer’s conduct and whether, by engaging in the litigation, the employer “knowingly relinquish[ed] the right to arbitrate by acting inconsistently with that right.”62 Delaware cases likewise permit parties to waive their right to arbitrate. 63 While serving as a Vice Chancellor, Justice Jacobs wrote that “a waiver of arbitration will be found if the party seeking arbitration has ‘actively participated in a lawsuit or taken other action inconsistent with the right to arbitration.’”64 The defendant had included the arbitration provision as an aff 2023The resulting inquiry would turn solely on the employer’s conduct and whether, by engaging in the litigation, the employer “knowingly relinquish[ed] the right to arbitrate by acting inconsistently with that right.”62 Delaware cases likewise permit parties to waive their right to arbitrate. 63 While serving as a Vice Chancellor, Justice Jacobs wrote that “a waiver of arbitration will be found if the party seeking arbitration has ‘actively participated in a lawsuit or taken other action inconsistent with the right to arbitration.’”64 The defendant had included the arbitration provision as an aff | 2 | 2 |
Parfi Holding AB v. Mirror Image Internet, Inc.green2 sentences2023AB v. Mirror Image Internet, Inc., 842 A.2d 1245 , 1260 n.39 (Del. 2023AB v. Mirror Image Internet, Inc., 842 A.2d 1245 , 1260 n.39 (Del. | 2 | 2 |
Sinclair Oil Corporation v. Leviengreen1 sentence2021Oct. 24, 2014); see also Sinclair Oil Corp. v. Levien, 280 A.2d 717, 720 (Del. 1971) (Entire fairness “will be applied only when the fiduciary duty” owed by a parent company to its subsidiary “is accompanied by self-dealing.”). 23 transaction or by extracting a unique benefit not shared with the other stockholders, for the standard to apply. 97 It is undisputed that AMC is a controlling stockholder of Southern Copper.98 Additionally, AMC has conceded that, with respect to the Minerals Contracts, it stood on both sides of the transactions, which the Amended Complaint alleges were unfair to Sout | 1 | 1 |
BioLife Solutions, Inc. v. Endocare, Inc.green1 sentence2020Seller has not shown that Buyer breached the Sale Agreement, much less that Buyer 308 BioLife Sols., 838 A.2d at 278 (internal quotation marks omitted); accord 23 Williston on Contracts § 63:3 (4th ed. 2003). 226 committed a material breach. | 1 | 1 |
Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P. v. Cantorgreen1 sentence2020The resulting standard for a preliminary injunction “falls well short of that which would be required to secure final relief following trial, since it explicitly requires only that the record establish a reasonable probability that this greater showing will ultimately be made.” Cantor Fitzgerald, 724 A.2d at 579 (internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Employees Retirement System of St. Louis v. TC Pipelines GP, Inc.green1 sentence2019See El Paso Pipeline GP Co. v. Brinckerhoff, 152 A.3d 1248 (Del. 2016). | 1 | 1 |
Harris v. Cartergreen1 sentence2017Although a controlling stockholder does not owe traditional fiduciary duties when selling its shares, it cannot act with impunity. “[N]o universal privilege arising from the corporate form . . . exempts a controlling shareholder who sells corporate control from the wholesome reach of th[e] common-law duty [of care].” Harris v. Carter, 582 A.2d 222, 235 (Del. | 1 | 1 |
Stroud v. Gracegreen1 sentence2011The resulting test incorporates the principles that animated Chancellor Allen’s decision in Blasius Industries, Inc. v. Atlas Corp., 564 A.2d 651 (Del.Ch.1988), and applies them “within the ... enhanced standard of judicial review.” MM Companies, Inc. v. Liquid Audio, Inc., 813 A.2d 1118, 1129 (Del.2003); accord Stroud v. Grace, 606 A.2d 75 , 92 n. 3 (Del.1992). | 1 | 1 |
MM Companies, Inc. v. Liquid Audio, Inc.green1 sentence2011The resulting test incorporates the principles that animated Chancellor Allen’s decision in Blasius Industries, Inc. v. Atlas Corp., 564 A.2d 651 (Del.Ch.1988), and applies them “within the ... enhanced standard of judicial review.” MM Companies, Inc. v. Liquid Audio, Inc., 813 A.2d 1118, 1129 (Del.2003); accord Stroud v. Grace, 606 A.2d 75 , 92 n. 3 (Del.1992). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Delaware. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sewell v. State
green
2 sentences2023The resulting analysis “is not tilted in favor of the plaintiff or the defendant.” Gramercy, 173 A.3d at 1044 . 2023The resulting analysis “is not tilted in favor of the plaintiff or the defendant.” Gramercy, 173 A.3d at 1044 . | 3 | 2021–2023 |
Savage v. US NAT. BANK ASS'N
green
1 sentence2020The Association denies that extraordinary circumstances exist to justify vacating the default judgment. 27 “Rule 60(b)(6) is a catch-all, allowing the Court to vacate a judgment if the movant can sufficiently show ‘any other reason justifying relief [from the operation of the judgment].’” 28 “Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) is an ‘extraordinary remedy,’ and the standard under Rule 60(b)(6) is more exacting than any other 25 Id. (citation omitted). 26 D.I. 22, ¶ 3. 27 D.I. 20 , ¶ 7. 28 CanCan Dev., LLC v. Manno, 2011 WL 4379064 , at *4 (Del. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Blasius Industries, Inc. v. Atlas Corp.
green
1 sentence2011The resulting test incorporates the principles that animated Chancellor Allen’s decision in Blasius Industries, Inc. v. Atlas Corp., 564 A.2d 651 (Del.Ch.1988), and applies them “within the ... enhanced standard of judicial review.” MM Companies, Inc. v. Liquid Audio, Inc., 813 A.2d 1118, 1129 (Del.2003); accord Stroud v. Grace, 606 A.2d 75 , 92 n. 3 (Del.1992). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Mason v. State
green
1 sentence1988For the reasons explained below, the Court concludes that the motion to suppress is granted as to Hanna’s second and third statements given at 3:45 and 4:05 a.m. on March 7,1987 because the Milford police failed to comply with the mandate of 10 Del.C. § 933 that a juvenile charged with a crime (delinquency) be taken “directly” before a court and Family Court Criminal Rule 5(b), which complements that law by requiring such presentment “without unreasonable delay.” I also conclude that the nighttime search warrant affidavit for Hanna’s residence in Milford was deficient under 11 Del.C. § 2308 an | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.