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.
10 Delaware opinions name it 3 courts 1967–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Turbitt v. Blue Hen Lines, Inc.green1 sentence2014Appendix at 42. 36 See Turbitt v. Blue Hen Lines, Inc., 711 A.2d 1214, 2126 (1998) (“‘institutional experience’ or administrative expertise the board possesses may be used as a tool for evaluating evidence but not as a source for creating evidence.”). 37 See ABA STANDARDS FOR IMPOSING LAWYER SANCTIONS, Standard 4.42 (1986 and as amended 1992). 12 clients or cases involved, the similarity of the duties violated and the resulting injuries, and the lawyer's state of mind. 38 Dr. Bilski argues that “[a]t best the evidence in the record is that [he] did not abide by the Model Policy with respect to | 1 | 1 |
Weinberger v. UOP, Inc.green1 sentence1986See, Weinberger v. UOP, Del.Supr., 457 A.2d 701 (1983); Sterling v. Mayflower Hotel Corp., Del.Supr., 33 Del.Ch. 293 , 93 A.2d 107 (1952). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Delaware. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kolber v. Holyoke Shares, Inc.
green
2 sentences1970Parvin v. Kaufmann, Del.Supr., 236 A.2d 425 (1967); Kolber v. Holyoke Shares, Inc., Del.Supr., 213 A.2d 444 (1965). 1967Kolber v. Holyoke Shares, Inc., Del., 213 A.2d 444 . *463 In General Foods Corporation v. Cryo-Maid, Inc., 41 Del. | 2 | 1967–1970 |
Omnicare, Inc. v. NCS Healthcare, Inc.
green
2 sentences2024Primarily analyzing the combination through a fiduciary duty lens, the majority held that the combination of defense measures was preclusive and therefore failed enhanced scrutiny. 88 In language suggesting that the equitable fate of contractual provisions could vary based on circumstances that arose after contracting, the majority stated that the “latitude a board will have in either maintaining or using the defensive devices it has adopted to protect the merger it approved will vary according to the degree of benefit or detriment to the stockholders’ interests that is presented by the value 2024Primarily analyzing the combination through a fiduciary duty lens, the majority held that the combination of defense measures was preclusive and therefore failed enhanced scrutiny. 88 In language suggesting that the equitable fate of contractual provisions could vary based on circumstances that arose after contracting, the majority stated that the “latitude a board will have in either maintaining or using the defensive devices it has adopted to protect the merger it approved will vary according to the degree of benefit or detriment to the stockholders’ interests that is presented by the value | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Odyssey Partners, L.P. v. Fleming Companies, Inc.
green
1 sentence2022I note that none of the factors listed in Basho are present here. 404 See Odyssey P’rs, L.P. v. Fleming Cos., Inc., 735 A.2d 386 (Del. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Prairie Capital III, L.P. v. Double E Holding Corp.
green
1 sentence2016In that provision, IAC expressly acknowledged that ValueClick was not “making, directly or indirectly, any representation or warranty” with respect to any information it 24 Id. 25 Anvil Holding Corp. v. Iron Acquisition Co., Inc., 2013 WL 2249655 , at *8 (Del. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
In Re Fuqua Industries, Inc. Shareholder Litigation
green
1 sentence2012Nevertheless, a strong showing as to one factor is sufficient if that factor “involve[s] some conflict of interest between the derivative plaintiff and the class.” Fuqua, 752 A.2d at 130 ; accord Bakerman, 2006 WL 3927242 , at *11; Alden, 2006 WL 456786 , at *8. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Lewis v. Curtis
green
1 sentence1989Youngman v. Tahmoush, supra; Lewis v. Curtis, 671 F.2d 779 (3d Cir.1982), cert. denied, Curtis v. Lewis, 459 U.S. 880 , 103 S.Ct. 176 , 74 L.Ed.2d 144 (1982); Smallwood v. Pearl Brewing Co., 489 F.2d 579 (5th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 873 , 95 S.Ct. 134 , 42 L.Ed.2d 113 (1974); 7C WRIGHT, MILLER & KANE, supra. In effect, the defendant must show a substantial likelihood that the derivative action is not being maintained for the benefit of the shareholders. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Vanderbilt v. Geo-Energy Limited
green
1 sentence1989Youngman v. Tahmoush, supra; Vanderbilt v. Geo-Energy Ltd., 725 F.2d 204 (3d Cir.1983); 7C WRIGHT, MILLER & KANE, supra. A defendant has the burden of proof in a motion to disqualify a derivative plaintiff and he must show that a serious conflict exists, by virtue of one factor or a combination of factors, and that the plaintiff cannot be expected to act in the interests of the others because doing so would harm his other interests. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 94,405 Joe L. Smallwood v. Pearl Brewing Company, Southdown, Inc., Zapata Norness, Inc., Albert J. Rangeand D. Doyle Mize
green
1 sentence1989Youngman v. Tahmoush, supra; Lewis v. Curtis, 671 F.2d 779 (3d Cir.1982), cert. denied, Curtis v. Lewis, 459 U.S. 880 , 103 S.Ct. 176 , 74 L.Ed.2d 144 (1982); Smallwood v. Pearl Brewing Co., 489 F.2d 579 (5th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 873 , 95 S.Ct. 134 , 42 L.Ed.2d 113 (1974); 7C WRIGHT, MILLER & KANE, supra. In effect, the defendant must show a substantial likelihood that the derivative action is not being maintained for the benefit of the shareholders. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Niezek v. United States
green
1 sentence1989Youngman v. Tahmoush, supra; Lewis v. Curtis, 671 F.2d 779 (3d Cir.1982), cert. denied, Curtis v. Lewis, 459 U.S. 880 , 103 S.Ct. 176 , 74 L.Ed.2d 144 (1982); Smallwood v. Pearl Brewing Co., 489 F.2d 579 (5th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 873 , 95 S.Ct. 134 , 42 L.Ed.2d 113 (1974); 7C WRIGHT, MILLER & KANE, supra. In effect, the defendant must show a substantial likelihood that the derivative action is not being maintained for the benefit of the shareholders. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Smith v. Stewart
green
1 sentence1989Youngman v. Tahmoush, supra; Lewis v. Curtis, 671 F.2d 779 (3d Cir.1982), cert. denied, Curtis v. Lewis, 459 U.S. 880 , 103 S.Ct. 176 , 74 L.Ed.2d 144 (1982); Smallwood v. Pearl Brewing Co., 489 F.2d 579 (5th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 873 , 95 S.Ct. 134 , 42 L.Ed.2d 113 (1974); 7C WRIGHT, MILLER & KANE, supra. In effect, the defendant must show a substantial likelihood that the derivative action is not being maintained for the benefit of the shareholders. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Wahba v. New York University
green
1 sentence1989Youngman v. Tahmoush, supra; Lewis v. Curtis, 671 F.2d 779 (3d Cir.1982), cert. denied, Curtis v. Lewis, 459 U.S. 880 , 103 S.Ct. 176 , 74 L.Ed.2d 144 (1982); Smallwood v. Pearl Brewing Co., 489 F.2d 579 (5th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 873 , 95 S.Ct. 134 , 42 L.Ed.2d 113 (1974); 7C WRIGHT, MILLER & KANE, supra. In effect, the defendant must show a substantial likelihood that the derivative action is not being maintained for the benefit of the shareholders. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Youngman v. Tahmoush
green
2 sentences1989Youngman v. Tahmoush, supra; Vanderbilt v. Geo-Energy Ltd., 725 F.2d 204 (3d Cir.1983); 7C WRIGHT, MILLER & KANE, supra. A defendant has the burden of proof in a motion to disqualify a derivative plaintiff and he must show that a serious conflict exists, by virtue of one factor or a combination of factors, and that the plaintiff cannot be expected to act in the interests of the others because doing so would harm his other interests. 1989Youngman v. Tahmoush, supra; Lewis v. Curtis, 671 F.2d 779 (3d Cir.1982), cert. denied, Curtis v. Lewis, 459 U.S. 880 , 103 S.Ct. 176 , 74 L.Ed.2d 144 (1982); Smallwood v. Pearl Brewing Co., 489 F.2d 579 (5th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 873 , 95 S.Ct. 134 , 42 L.Ed.2d 113 (1974); 7C WRIGHT, MILLER & KANE, supra. In effect, the defendant must show a substantial likelihood that the derivative action is not being maintained for the benefit of the shareholders. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Best v. United Virginia Bank/National
green
1 sentence1989Youngman v. Tahmoush, supra; Lewis v. Curtis, 671 F.2d 779 (3d Cir.1982), cert. denied, Curtis v. Lewis, 459 U.S. 880 , 103 S.Ct. 176 , 74 L.Ed.2d 144 (1982); Smallwood v. Pearl Brewing Co., 489 F.2d 579 (5th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 873 , 95 S.Ct. 134 , 42 L.Ed.2d 113 (1974); 7C WRIGHT, MILLER & KANE, supra. In effect, the defendant must show a substantial likelihood that the derivative action is not being maintained for the benefit of the shareholders. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Curtis v. Lewis
green
1 sentence1989Youngman v. Tahmoush, supra; Lewis v. Curtis, 671 F.2d 779 (3d Cir.1982), cert. denied, Curtis v. Lewis, 459 U.S. 880 , 103 S.Ct. 176 , 74 L.Ed.2d 144 (1982); Smallwood v. Pearl Brewing Co., 489 F.2d 579 (5th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 873 , 95 S.Ct. 134 , 42 L.Ed.2d 113 (1974); 7C WRIGHT, MILLER & KANE, supra. In effect, the defendant must show a substantial likelihood that the derivative action is not being maintained for the benefit of the shareholders. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
H. L. Moore Drug Exchange v. Lilly
green
1 sentence1989Youngman v. Tahmoush, supra; Lewis v. Curtis, 671 F.2d 779 (3d Cir.1982), cert. denied, Curtis v. Lewis, 459 U.S. 880 , 103 S.Ct. 176 , 74 L.Ed.2d 144 (1982); Smallwood v. Pearl Brewing Co., 489 F.2d 579 (5th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 873 , 95 S.Ct. 134 , 42 L.Ed.2d 113 (1974); 7C WRIGHT, MILLER & KANE, supra. In effect, the defendant must show a substantial likelihood that the derivative action is not being maintained for the benefit of the shareholders. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Jardel Co., Inc. v. Hughes
green
1 sentence1988Id. at 531 . 5 The combination of factors plaintiff points to in asserting wanton conduct by Blake include: Blake failed to read the plaintiff's commitment papers; despite his knowledge that the plaintiff was intoxicated and had attempted to grab a gun from a police officer, Blake forewent his normal practice of cuffing the patient with his hands behind his back; Blake knew his car was not suitable for transporting patients; and that after the plaintiff stated his intent to commit suicide, Blake failed to take proper precautions. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Sterling v. Mayflower Hotel Corp.
green
2 sentences1986See, Weinberger v. UOP, Del.Supr., 457 A.2d 701 (1983); Sterling v. Mayflower Hotel Corp., Del.Supr., 33 Del.Ch. 293 , 93 A.2d 107 (1952). 1986See, Weinberger v. UOP, Del.Supr., 457 A.2d 701 (1983); Sterling v. Mayflower Hotel Corp., Del.Supr., 33 Del.Ch. 293 , 93 A.2d 107 (1952). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Parvin v. Kaufmann
green
1 sentence1970Parvin v. Kaufmann, Del.Supr., 236 A.2d 425 (1967); Kolber v. Holyoke Shares, Inc., Del.Supr., 213 A.2d 444 (1965). | 1 | 1970–1970 |
General Foods Corp. v. Cryo-Maid, Inc.
neutral
1 sentence1967Kolber v. Holyoke Shares, Inc., Del., 213 A.2d 444 . *463 In General Foods Corporation v. Cryo-Maid, Inc., 41 Del. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
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.