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 4 courts 1947–2025 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bodley v. Jonesgreen1 sentence2025Palm Beach Firefighters’ Pension Fund v. Moelis & Co., 310 A.3d 985 , 991 (Del. Ch. 2024); cf. id. at 1000-01 (describing a pleading-stage inference that a stockholder who bought into a governance regime that had been previously disclosed as a defense-friendly inference, and positing “[t]he existence of Section 327 of the DGCL suggests that absent a statutory amendment, Delaware does not equate the act of purchasing shares with acquiescence to illegal conduct”). 17 In re Riverbed Tech., Inc. S’holders Litig., 2015 WL 5458041 , at *2 (Del. Ch. Sept. 17, 2015). 18 Bodley v. Jones, 59 A.2d 463, 4 | 1 | 1 |
Principal Life Insurance v. Locker Groupgreen1 sentence2024Co. v. Locker Grp., 869 F. Supp. 2d 359, 366 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (rejecting ratification defense raised at summary judgment phase where defendant failed to plead the affirmative defense in its answer); 2A William Meade Fletcher et al., Fletcher Cyclopedia of the Law of Corporations § 777, at 626-27 (perm. ed., rev. vol. 2024) (“A failure to plead affirmatively ratification and estoppel may be waived, as by proceeding with the trial without objection. | 1 | 1 |
Miller v. Board of Adjustment of Dewey Beachgreen1 sentence2021Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 2002 WL 1558382 , at *6 (Del. Ch. July 9, 2002)). 69 Salem Church (Del.) Assocs. v. New Castle Cty., 2006 WL 4782453 , at *12 (Del. Ch. Oct. 6, 2006) (footnotes and internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Miller v. Bd. of Adjustment of Dewey Beach, 521 A.2d 642, 646 (Del. Super. 1986)). 70 Port Penn, 2019 WL 2077600 , at *8-10. | 1 | 1 |
Petras v. State Board of Pension Trusteesgreen1 sentence2017Ba'. of Pension Trustees, 464 A.2d 894, 895-96 (Del. 1983). 19 Because of this determination, we need not address the reasonable-expectation and avoidance- of-injustice prongs of the estoppel analysis 8 the trier of its merit.”20 For the reasons previously stated, the Board’s rejection of Richardson’s testimony relating to reliance Was not an abuse of discretion and was well Within the bounds of reason. | 1 | 1 |
Waggoner v. Lastergreen1 sentence1994Id; Waggoner v. Laster, Del.Supr., 581 A.2d 1127, 1136 (1990). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Delaware. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Shawe v. Elting
green
1 sentence2020Lucinda’s “claim against the estate” and tortious interference claims are also unsuccessful.358 In the alternative to her breach of contract and promissory estoppel claims, Lucinda pled that she should be entitled to a claim against 353 D.I. 200 ¶ 3. 354 D.I. 259 at 14-15. 355 See In re Shawe & Elting LLC, 2015 WL 4874733 , at *35 (Del. Ch. Aug. 13, 2015), aff’d sub nom. 157 A.3d 152 (Del. 2017); Owen v. Cannon, 2015 WL 3819204 , at *32 (Del. Ch. June 17, 2015); In re El Paso Pipeline P’rs, L.P. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Aveta Inc. v. Cavallieri
green
1 sentence2015Rather, Plaintiff’s interest as a former stockholder of the Company remains subject to all the Company’s bylaws as of the effective time of the Reverse Stock Split—which did not include the 38 23 A.3d 157 (Del. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Haveg Corporation v. Guyer
green
1 sentence2015I discuss those exceptions next. i. Part performance Part performance is a well-recognized exception to the Statute of Frauds for contracts involving interests in land.84 “Part performance may be deemed to take a contract out of the provisions of the statute of frauds on the theory that acts of performance, even if incomplete, constitute substantial evidence that a contract actually 82 Guyer, 211 A.2d at 912 . 83 See, e.g., Hendry v. Hendry, 2006 WL 4804019 , at *7 (Del. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Burge v. Fidelity Bond and Mortg. Co.
green
1 sentence1998"For an estoppel claim to prevail, it must be shown that the party claiming estoppel lacked knowledge or the means of obtaining knowledge of the truth of the facts in question_" Id. at 420 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Alderson v. Alderson
green
2 sentences1986The above cited cases were not overruled by Alderson v. Alderson, Ind.Supr., 258 Ind. 328 , 281 N.E.2d 82 (1972), where the Supreme Court held that the principle of indivisibility was no longer viable as this principle, when applied with the doctrine of estoppel, would prevent a party who had remarried after a decree of divorce was entered from challenging any part of the divorce decree on appeal, thereby producing “... severe results which border on absurdity.” Id. 281 N.E. at 83. 1986The above cited cases were not overruled by Alderson v. Alderson, Ind.Supr., 258 Ind. 328 , 281 N.E.2d 82 (1972), where the Supreme Court held that the principle of indivisibility was no longer viable as this principle, when applied with the doctrine of estoppel, would prevent a party who had remarried after a decree of divorce was entered from challenging any part of the divorce decree on appeal, thereby producing “... severe results which border on absurdity.” Id. 281 N.E. at 83. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Ottendorfer v. Aetna Insurance Company
green
1 sentence1983Ottendorfer v. Aetna Insurance Company, Del.Supr., 231 A.2d 263 (1967). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Henderson v. Sherwood Motor Hotel, Inc.
green
2 sentences1973The claimant relies upon Tate v. Industrial Accident Commission, 120 Cal.App.2d 657 , 261 P.2d 759 (1953); Henderson v. Sherwood Motor Hotel, Inc., 105 N.H. 443 , 201 A.2d 891 (1964); and United States Steel Corp. v. Mason, 141 Ind.App. 336 , 227 N.E.2d 694 (1967). 1973The claimant relies upon Tate v. Industrial Accident Commission, 120 Cal.App.2d 657 , 261 P.2d 759 (1953); Henderson v. Sherwood Motor Hotel, Inc., 105 N.H. 443 , 201 A.2d 891 (1964); and United States Steel Corp. v. Mason, 141 Ind.App. 336 , 227 N.E.2d 694 (1967). | 1 | 1973–1973 |
United States Steel Corp. v. Mason
neutral
2 sentences1973The claimant relies upon Tate v. Industrial Accident Commission, 120 Cal.App.2d 657 , 261 P.2d 759 (1953); Henderson v. Sherwood Motor Hotel, Inc., 105 N.H. 443 , 201 A.2d 891 (1964); and United States Steel Corp. v. Mason, 141 Ind.App. 336 , 227 N.E.2d 694 (1967). 1973The claimant relies upon Tate v. Industrial Accident Commission, 120 Cal.App.2d 657 , 261 P.2d 759 (1953); Henderson v. Sherwood Motor Hotel, Inc., 105 N.H. 443 , 201 A.2d 891 (1964); and United States Steel Corp. v. Mason, 141 Ind.App. 336 , 227 N.E.2d 694 (1967). | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Tate v. Industrial Accident Commission
green
2 sentences1973The claimant relies upon Tate v. Industrial Accident Commission, 120 Cal.App.2d 657 , 261 P.2d 759 (1953); Henderson v. Sherwood Motor Hotel, Inc., 105 N.H. 443 , 201 A.2d 891 (1964); and United States Steel Corp. v. Mason, 141 Ind.App. 336 , 227 N.E.2d 694 (1967). 1973The claimant relies upon Tate v. Industrial Accident Commission, 120 Cal.App.2d 657 , 261 P.2d 759 (1953); Henderson v. Sherwood Motor Hotel, Inc., 105 N.H. 443 , 201 A.2d 891 (1964); and United States Steel Corp. v. Mason, 141 Ind.App. 336 , 227 N.E.2d 694 (1967). | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Sola Electric Co. v. Jefferson Electric Co.
green
2 sentences1947Probably the earliest instance in which the United States Supreme Court refused to follow the estoppel doctrine is Sola Electric Co. v. Jefferson Electric Co., 1942, 317 U. S. 173 , 63 S. Ct. 172, 174 , 87 L. 1947Probably the earliest instance in which the United States Supreme Court refused to follow the estoppel doctrine is Sola Electric Co. v. Jefferson Electric Co., 1942, 317 U. S. 173 , 63 S. Ct. 172, 174 , 87 L. | 1 | 1947–1947 |
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.