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.
12 Delaware opinions name it 1 courts 2016–2026 9 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 |
|---|---|---|
Laboratory Corp. of America, Inc. v. Upstate Testing Laboratory, Inc.green1 sentence2025Corp. of Am., Inc. v. Upstate Testing Lab., Inc., 967 F. Supp. 295, 299 (N.D. | 1 | 1 |
Aiu Insurance Company v. Lexesgreen1 sentence2024Co. v. Lexes, 815 A.2d 312, 314 (Del. 2003)); AIU Ins. | 1 | 1 |
Sutherland v. Sutherlandgreen1 sentence2023He is, therefore, free of the suggestions of liability 513 Sutherland v. Sutherland, 958 A.2d 235, 239 (Del. | 1 | 1 |
VLIW TECHNOLOGY, LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Co.green1 sentence2023“In alleging a breach of contract, a plaintiff need not plead specific facts to state an actionable claim.” VLIW Tech., LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 840 A.2d 606, 611 (Del. 2003). | 1 | 1 |
Hamilton Partners, L.P. v. Englardgreen1 sentence2021Before turning to the merits of the choice of law dispute, it is appropriate first to consider whether 27 Id. at *8 (noting that an “important consideration [under Cryo-Maid] is the degree to which one jurisdiction or the other has engaged with the case and expended judicial resources”); see also id. (“If a judge in one forum has invested actual, substantive effort in a case, a competing forum should consider carefully whether one of its judges should make a similar case-specific investment.”) (quoting Hamilton P’rs, L.P. v. Englard, 11 A.3d 1180, 1217 (Del. | 1 | 1 |
Savor, Inc. v. FMR Corp.green1 sentence2020Those motions are in abeyance pending the court’s adjudication of the Company’s motion for leave to dismiss the Special Committee’s Verified Complaint under Court of Chancery Rule 41(a), which was argued on October 16, 2020. 70 Dkt. 200. 71 Savor, Inc. v. FMR Corp., 812 A.2d 894, 896-97 (Del. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 15 does the Complaint state a breach of fiduciary duty claim against SBG and Vision Fund? | 1 | 1 |
Grimes v. Donaldgreen2 sentences2019The Company’s case for finding Glaubach personally liable for $422,000 in healthcare 247 The Company also relies on a statement in Grimes v. Donald, that a basis for demand excusal “would normally be that . . . a majority of the board has a material financial or familial interest.” 673 A.2d 1207, 1216 (Del. 1996). 2019Miano is a partner at Friedman LLP, the accounting firm that performed a forensic analysis of the healthcare services the Company provided to Shechtman from January 2010 to June 2014.252 She testified that Friedman LLP found that 249 Id. 250 JX 733; Tr. 437-41 (Glaubach). 251 JX 733. | 1 | 1 |
McClellan v. Northridge Park Townhome Owners Ass'ngreen2 sentences2016See, e.g., McClellan v. Northridge Park Townhome Owners Assn, Inc., 89 Cal.App.4th 746 , 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 702, 706 (2001) (“[A Section 187 motion] is an appropriate and complete method by which to bind new individual defendants where it can be demonstrated that in their capacity as alter ego of the corporation they in fact had control of the previous litigation, and thus were virtually represented in the lawsuit.” (quotation marks omitted)); NEC Elecs. 2016See, e.g., McClellan v. Northridge Park Townhome Owners Assn, Inc., 89 Cal.App.4th 746 , 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 702, 706 (2001) (“[A Section 187 motion] is an appropriate and complete method by which to bind new individual defendants where it can be demonstrated that in their capacity as alter ego of the corporation they in fact had control of the previous litigation, and thus were virtually represented in the lawsuit.” (quotation marks omitted)); NEC Elecs. | 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 Industries Group v. Carlyle Investment Management L.L.C.
green
1 sentence2026Therefore, the Company’s allegations that certain provisions of the Employment Agreement are invalid and the product of Kiani’s improper control or the Board’s breaches of fiduciary duties do not prevent enforcing the Forum Selection Clause because the Company does not claim “the forum selection clause itself is invalid.” Id. 36 in California, the phrases “‘arise out of’ or ‘related to’” connote a “[b]road forum selection clause[.]” 181 Indeed, the parties agreed at oral argument that drafters use the phrase “relating to . . . when they want to capture the broadest possible universe.” 182 “[A] | 1 | 2026–2026 |
El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. TransAmerican Natural Gas Corp.
green
1 sentence2025The court held that the company stated a claim for damages measured by the expenses incurred in the foreclosed forum.27 The decision cited El Paso and precedents from other jurisdictions.28 25 El Paso, 669 A.2d at 40 . 26 Id. 27 O’Steen, 2006 WL 2788414 , at *4. 28 Id. at *4 n.17 (first citing Lab. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Adkins Ltd. Partnership v. O Street Management, LLC
green
1 sentence2024Terrell v. Kiromic Biopharma, Inc., Civil Action No. 2021-0248-MTZ January 31, 2024 Page 6 of 21 of substantive arbitrability, and the trial court will review that determination de novo.15 Terrell III also discussed AIU Insurance Company v. Lexes, which similarly explains that the scope of an appraiser’s authority is a legal question for the courts.16 Terrell III concluded “the Committee’s contractual interpretation was subject, under the [Adkins] court’s reasoning, to de novo review,” and this Court should have decided the Company’s motion to dismiss “in light of its de novo interpretation of | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Ricera Biosciences, LLC v. Nordion Inc.
green
1 sentence2024Rivkin backdated it to March 1, 2000, reflecting when he started at Intermedia.” (citation omitted)), aff’d, 129 A.3d 232 (Del. 2015). 60 This is one of the times when the burden of proof matters beyond those rare occasions when the evidence is in equipoise. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Bank Markazi v. Peterson
green
1 sentence2023The Company’s motion is granted and Harkonen’s motion is denied. 100 See Bank Markazi v. Peterson, 578 U.S. 212 , 226–28 (2016). 101 Harkonen Br. at 21. 29 B. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Zirn v. VLI Corp.
green
1 sentence2021The Defendants take exception to this recommendation, contending that, at the pleading stage, mere allegations of a conflict of interest are insufficient to waive attorney- client privilege as to the Company’s directors and officers.91 89 Final Report 11–12. 90 Id. 91 The Defendants note that the Special Master’s Draft Report recommended privilege as to these communications and, therefore, they did not previously have the opportunity to take exception to this recommendation. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
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.