11 Delaware opinions name it 3 courts 1981–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Airborne Health, Inc. v. Squid Soap, LPgreen2 sentences2025The presence of a standard integration clause alone, which does not contain explicit anti-reliance representations and which is not accompanied by other contractual provisions demonstrating with clarity that the plaintiff had agreed that it was not relying on facts outside the contract, will not suffice to bar fraud claims.”); ABRY P’rs, 891 A.2d at 1059 (“[M]urky integration clauses, or standard integration clauses without explicit anti-reliance representations, will not relieve a party of its oral and extra-contractual fraudulent representations.”); Airborne Health, Inc. v. Squid Soap (Squid 2024The presence of a standard integration clause alone, which does not contain explicit anti- reliance representations and which is not accompanied by other contractual provisions demonstrating with clarity that the plaintiff had agreed that it was not relying on facts outside the contract, will not suffice to bar fraud claims.”); Abry P’rs, 891 A.2d at 1059 (“[M]urky integration clauses, or standard integration clauses without explicit anti-reliance representations, will not relieve a party of its oral and extra-contractual fraudulent representations.”); Airborne Health, Inc. v. Squid Soap (Squi | 2 | 2 |
Abry Partners V, L.P. v. F & W Acquisition LLCgreen2 sentences2025The presence of a standard integration clause alone, which does not contain explicit anti-reliance representations and which is not accompanied by other contractual provisions demonstrating with clarity that the plaintiff had agreed that it was not relying on facts outside the contract, will not suffice to bar fraud claims.”); ABRY P’rs, 891 A.2d at 1059 (“[M]urky integration clauses, or standard integration clauses without explicit anti-reliance representations, will not relieve a party of its oral and extra-contractual fraudulent representations.”); Airborne Health, Inc. v. Squid Soap (Squid 2024The presence of a standard integration clause alone, which does not contain explicit anti- reliance representations and which is not accompanied by other contractual provisions demonstrating with clarity that the plaintiff had agreed that it was not relying on facts outside the contract, will not suffice to bar fraud claims.”); Abry P’rs, 891 A.2d at 1059 (“[M]urky integration clauses, or standard integration clauses without explicit anti-reliance representations, will not relieve a party of its oral and extra-contractual fraudulent representations.”); Airborne Health, Inc. v. Squid Soap (Squi | 2 | 2 |
Bradshaw v. Stategreen1 sentence2021R. 43(c) (excepting from the presence requirement certain “conferences”). 104 Bradshaw, 806 A.2d at 134 (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted). 28 Of course, final case review was created by the Court to facilitate pleas and implement the rules governing them.105 And when the parties use final case review as a forum for formally accepting or rejecting a plea, the defendant’s presence for a colloquy is required.106 But that is not what the parties did here. | 1 | 1 |
Dell, Inc. v. Magnetar Global Event Driven Master Fund Ltd.green2 sentences2019As noted, these are fewer objective indicia of fairness than the Delaware Supreme Court identified when reviewing the sale processes in DFC, Dell, or Aruba, and the presence of these factors does not establish a presumption in favor of the deal price. 12 See Aruba, 210 A.3d at 136 (“It cannot be that an open chance for buyers to bid signals a market failure simply because buyers do not believe the asset on sale is sufficiently valuable for them to engage in a bidding contest against each other.”); Dell, 177 A.3d at 29 (“Fair value entails at a minimum a price some buyer is willing to pay— not 2019As noted, these are fewer objective indicia of fairness than the Delaware Supreme Court identified when reviewing the sale processes in DFC, Dell, or Aruba, and the presence of these factors does not establish a presumption in favor of the deal price. 12 See Aruba, 210 A.3d at 136 (“It cannot be that an open chance for buyers to bid signals a market failure simply because buyers do not believe the asset on sale is sufficiently valuable for them to engage in a bidding contest against each other.”); Dell, 177 A.3d at 29 (“Fair value entails at a minimum a price some buyer is willing to pay— not | 1 | 1 |
Verition Partners Master Fund Ltd. v. Aruba Networks, Inc.green1 sentence2019As noted, these are fewer objective indicia of fairness than the Delaware Supreme Court identified when reviewing the sale processes in DFC, Dell, or Aruba, and the presence of these factors does not establish a presumption in favor of the deal price. 12 See Aruba, 210 A.3d at 136 (“It cannot be that an open chance for buyers to bid signals a market failure simply because buyers do not believe the asset on sale is sufficiently valuable for them to engage in a bidding contest against each other.”); Dell, 177 A.3d at 29 (“Fair value entails at a minimum a price some buyer is willing to pay— not | 1 | 1 |
cluster 353833green1 sentence1982See United States v. Brown, 6th Cir., 571 F.2d 980, 987 (1978). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Delaware. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kronenberg v. Katz
green
2 sentences2021Sept. 30, 2014) (“The presence of a standard integration clause, alone, which does not contain explicit anti-reliance representations and which is not accompanied by other contractual provisions demonstrating with clarity that the plaintiff had agreed that it was not relying on facts outside the contract, will not suffice to bar fraud claims.” (quoting Kronenberg, 872 A.2d at 593 )). 156 Savant’s Mot. for Partial Summ. 2021Sept. 30, 2014) (“The presence of a standard integration clause, alone, which does not contain explicit anti-reliance representations and which is not accompanied by other contractual provisions demonstrating with clarity that the plaintiff had agreed that it was not relying on facts outside the contract, will not suffice to bar fraud claims.” (quoting Kronenberg, 872 A.2d at 593 )). 156 Savant’s Mot. for Partial Summ. | 5 | 2009–2021 |
Merrigan v. Spradling
green
2 sentences1981Similarly, the Court in Merrigan v. Spradling, Mo.App., 564 S.W.2d 615 (1978), repelled an attack upon a 30 day suspension, stating that “the failure of the record of the lower court to show the presence or the waiver of counsel does not void the convictions.” 564 S.W.2d 615, at 618 . 1981Similarly, the Court in Merrigan v. Spradling, Mo.App., 564 S.W.2d 615 (1978), repelled an attack upon a 30 day suspension, stating that “the failure of the record of the lower court to show the presence or the waiver of counsel does not void the convictions.” 564 S.W.2d 615, at 618 . | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.