11 Delaware opinions name it 3 courts 1942–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Walsh v. Hotel Corporation of Americagreen2 sentences2001In Walsh v. Hotel Coloration of American, Del.Supr., 231 A.2d 458, 460 (1967), this Court specifically noted the then governing Canon of Judicial Ethics No. 19. 1985In Walsh v. Hotel Corporation of America, Del.Supr., 231 A.2d 458, 460 (1967), this Court specifically noted the then governing Canon of Judicial Ethics No. 19. | 2 | 2 |
Lovett v. Stategreen1 sentence2016As noted earlier, the amount tested was more than sufficient for 71Lovett v. State, 516 A.2d 455, 475 (Del. 1986), cert. den., 481 U.S. 1018 (1987) (“Something more than unverified conjecture must be shown.”). 26 conviction on the counts related to that evidence Trial counsel was not ineffective for not objecting F or the foregoing reasons this claim fails Ground Seventeen: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Occurred Due to Counsel’s Failure to Seek lD of Confidential lnformant. | 1 | 1 |
Holloway v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2016As noted earlier, the amount tested was more than sufficient for 71Lovett v. State, 516 A.2d 455, 475 (Del. 1986), cert. den., 481 U.S. 1018 (1987) (“Something more than unverified conjecture must be shown.”). 26 conviction on the counts related to that evidence Trial counsel was not ineffective for not objecting F or the foregoing reasons this claim fails Ground Seventeen: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Occurred Due to Counsel’s Failure to Seek lD of Confidential lnformant. | 1 | 1 |
Charlie M. Webster v. Offshore Food Service, Inc.green2 sentences1985Two of the significant reasons for this rule were distilled by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Webster v. Offshore Food Service, Inc., 434 F.2d 1191 (1970). 1985First, the trier of fact is entitled to weigh credibility of the witness and to value his testimony in light of his demeanor on the stand, (cites omitted.) Second, and perhaps more important, is the general recognition that the trier of fact is not bound by expert testimony and may substitute its own common-sense judgment for that of the experts, (cites omitted.) Id. at 1193. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Delaware. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Trustees v. Greenough
green
1 sentence2024CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above Plaintiff’s Motion for an Award of Attorney’s Fees is DENIED. 81 Among the other reasons this exception is inapplicable is that the fees sought would not come from the entity or those minority stockholders who Plaintiff asserts have benefited, but directly from Jonas. 82 Pl.’s OB 34. 83 Id. at 35 n.129. 22 | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Rodriguez Delgado v. Shell Oil Co.
green
1 sentence2021Tex. 2004) (“The Fifth Circuit’s requirement that f.n.c. dismissals contain return jurisdiction clauses, and its explanations of the reasons for this requirement, make it clear that return jurisdiction clauses are intended to ensure that cases subject to those dismissals remain subject to the dismissing court’s jurisdiction.”). 91 Delgado I, 890 F.Supp. at 1376 . 92 See Chaverri I, 896 F.Supp.2d at 562 n.14 (noting that the Middle District of Florida suit was dismissed the day after the Texas court limited the injunction to only the named plaintiffs in the Texas litigation, rather than the ent | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Delgado v. Shell Oil Co.
green
1 sentence2021Tex. 2004) (“The Fifth Circuit’s requirement that f.n.c. dismissals contain return jurisdiction clauses, and its explanations of the reasons for this requirement, make it clear that return jurisdiction clauses are intended to ensure that cases subject to those dismissals remain subject to the dismissing court’s jurisdiction.”). 91 Delgado I, 890 F.Supp. at 1376 . 92 See Chaverri I, 896 F.Supp.2d at 562 n.14 (noting that the Middle District of Florida suit was dismissed the day after the Texas court limited the injunction to only the named plaintiffs in the Texas litigation, rather than the ent | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Chaverri v. Dole Food Co.
green
1 sentence2021Tex. 2004) (“The Fifth Circuit’s requirement that f.n.c. dismissals contain return jurisdiction clauses, and its explanations of the reasons for this requirement, make it clear that return jurisdiction clauses are intended to ensure that cases subject to those dismissals remain subject to the dismissing court’s jurisdiction.”). 91 Delgado I, 890 F.Supp. at 1376 . 92 See Chaverri I, 896 F.Supp.2d at 562 n.14 (noting that the Middle District of Florida suit was dismissed the day after the Texas court limited the injunction to only the named plaintiffs in the Texas litigation, rather than the ent | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Metro Comm. BVI v. ADVANCED MOBILECOMM
green
1 sentence2016Inc., 854 A.2d 121 , 131 (Del. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Doran v. State
green
1 sentence1995Id. at 745 n. 3. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Cannon v. Miller
green
1 sentence1985The reasons for the rule were well restated by this Court in Cannon v. Miller, supra: A judge of our State must understand that the legal requirement of supplying reasons is a matter of judicial ethics as *812 well as a matter of law. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Matter of Edge Ho Holding Corp.
green
2 sentences1957In Re Edge Ho Holding Corp., 256 N. Y. 374 , 176 N. E. 537 ; Overholser v. DeMarcos, 80 U. S. App. D. 1957In Re Edge Ho Holding Corp., 256 N. Y. 374 , 176 N. E. 537 ; Overholser v. DeMarcos, 80 U. S. App. D. | 1 | 1957–1957 |
Robert Mitchell Furniture Co. v. Selden Breck Construction Co.
green
2 sentences1948Co., 279 U. S. 405 , 49 S. Ct. 360 , 73 L.Ed. 762 ; Mitchell Furniture Co. v. Selden Breck Co., 257 U. S. 213 , 42 S.Ct. 84 , 66 L.Ed. 201 , among others. 1948Co., 279 U. S. 405 , 49 S. Ct. 360 , 73 L.Ed. 762 ; Mitchell Furniture Co. v. Selden Breck Co., 257 U. S. 213 , 42 S.Ct. 84 , 66 L.Ed. 201 , among others. | 1 | 1948–1948 |
Morris & Co. v. Skandinavia Insurance
green
2 sentences1948Co., 279 U. S. 405 , 49 S. Ct. 360 , 73 L.Ed. 762 ; Mitchell Furniture Co. v. Selden Breck Co., 257 U. S. 213 , 42 S.Ct. 84 , 66 L.Ed. 201 , among others. 1948Co., 279 U. S. 405 , 49 S. Ct. 360 , 73 L.Ed. 762 ; Mitchell Furniture Co. v. Selden Breck Co., 257 U. S. 213 , 42 S.Ct. 84 , 66 L.Ed. 201 , among others. | 1 | 1948–1948 |
Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Harrison
neutral
1 sentence1948Petitioner cites Pull man Palace Car Co. v. Harrison, 122 Ala. 149 , 25 So. 697 , 82 Am. | 1 | 1948–1948 |
Guardianship of Di Carlo
green
2 sentences1942The reasons for this rule as stated by the Supreme Court of California in the case of In re Di Carlo’s Estate and Guardianship, 3 Cal. 2d 225 , 44 P. 2d 562, 566 , 99 A. L. 1942The reasons for this rule as stated by the Supreme Court of California in the case of In re Di Carlo’s Estate and Guardianship, 3 Cal. 2d 225 , 44 P. 2d 562, 566 , 99 A. L. | 1 | 1942–1942 |
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.