10 Delaware opinions name it 3 courts 1983–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Diamond State Telephone Co. v. University of Delawaregreen2 sentences2022Second, even if the Supreme Court had adopted this exception, its efforts to distinguish Star Chopper’s facts demonstrates why the relationship between Restoration and Storrow, as alleged, could not have created an implied duty. 25 SW, Inc., 450 A.2d at 888 . 26 Id. at 889 . 27 See 7 Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law § 121.07(1) (2002) (noting that there is a “sharp divergence of opinion” between the majority that rejects the implied indemnity doctrine, and the small minority of jurisdictions that hold “when the relation between the parties is based on contract, an obligation of care with acc 2022Second, even if the Supreme Court had adopted this exception, its efforts to distinguish Star Chopper’s facts demonstrates why the relationship between Restoration and Storrow, as alleged, could not have created an implied duty. 25 SW, Inc., 450 A.2d at 888 . 26 Id. at 889 . 27 See 7 Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law § 121.07(1) (2002) (noting that there is a “sharp divergence of opinion” between the majority that rejects the implied indemnity doctrine, and the small minority of jurisdictions that hold “when the relation between the parties is based on contract, an obligation of care with acc | 2 | 2 |
SW (Delaware), Inc. v. American Consumers Industries, Inc.green2 sentences2022Second, even if the Supreme Court had adopted this exception, its efforts to distinguish Star Chopper’s facts demonstrates why the relationship between Restoration and Storrow, as alleged, could not have created an implied duty. 25 SW, Inc., 450 A.2d at 888 . 26 Id. at 889 . 27 See 7 Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law § 121.07(1) (2002) (noting that there is a “sharp divergence of opinion” between the majority that rejects the implied indemnity doctrine, and the small minority of jurisdictions that hold “when the relation between the parties is based on contract, an obligation of care with acc 2022Second, even if the Supreme Court had adopted this exception, its efforts to distinguish Star Chopper’s facts demonstrates why the relationship between Restoration and Storrow, as alleged, could not have created an implied duty. 25 SW, Inc., 450 A.2d at 888 . 26 Id. at 889 . 27 See 7 Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law § 121.07(1) (2002) (noting that there is a “sharp divergence of opinion” between the majority that rejects the implied indemnity doctrine, and the small minority of jurisdictions that hold “when the relation between the parties is based on contract, an obligation of care with acc | 1 | 3 |
Gentile v. Rossettered1 sentence2019Oct. 28, 2011)); see also Dubroff, 2011 WL 5137175 , at *9 (“[M]inority shareholders may have a direct equity dilution claim when their holdings are diluted, and those of the corporation’s controller are not.”). 'S Gentile, 906 A.2d at 94-95 (involving a transaction where controller was sole recipient of extracted benefit); Feldman, 956 A.2d at 657 (articulating the Gentile standard as requiring controller to receive an “exclusive benefit of increased equity ownership and voting power for inadequate consideration” (emphasis added)); Klein, 2018 WL 6719717 , at *6 (quoting “exclusive benefit” l | 1 | 1 |
Feldman v. Cutaiagreen1 sentence2019Oct. 28, 2011)); see also Dubroff, 2011 WL 5137175 , at *9 (“[M]inority shareholders may have a direct equity dilution claim when their holdings are diluted, and those of the corporation’s controller are not.”). 'S Gentile, 906 A.2d at 94-95 (involving a transaction where controller was sole recipient of extracted benefit); Feldman, 956 A.2d at 657 (articulating the Gentile standard as requiring controller to receive an “exclusive benefit of increased equity ownership and voting power for inadequate consideration” (emphasis added)); Klein, 2018 WL 6719717 , at *6 (quoting “exclusive benefit” l | 1 | 1 |
Rafferty v. Hartman Walsh Painting Co.green1 sentence2007See Rafferty v. Hartman Walsh Painting Co., 760 A.2d 157 (Del.2000). | 1 | 1 |
Battista v. Chrysler Corp.green1 sentence1995Battista v. Chrysler Corp., Del.Super., 454 A.2d 286, 288 (1982). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Delaware. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Eagle Force Holdings, LLC v. Campbell
green
1 sentence2025Tr. 46:16–18, 47:2–4. 243 Pls.’ Opening Br. 26. 244 Id. at 26−27; Pls.’ Reply Br. 15−17. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Simendinger v. National Union Fire Insurance
green
1 sentence2021Instead, the Henry Court, without addressing whether the pre- amendment or post-amendment version of the exclusivity clause applied, held that the worker’s compensation insurer is not an “employer” under the workers’ 18 Simendinger, 74 A.3d at 612 . 6 compensation statute and is therefore not entitled to the exclusivity clause which applies to employers.19 Nevertheless, in dicta, the Court stated that the UIM insurance company “steps into the shoes of the alleged tortfeasor.”20 Comp Carrier has seized on this dicta to argue “[a]s Defendant now stands in the shoes of an independent third party | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Robinson v. State
neutral
1 sentence2018Apr. 11, 2017), aff’d, 176 A.3d 1274 (Del. 2017). 7 amendment was a clarification or a substantive change, as only clarifications can apply retroactively.27 The Court concluded that the amendment to the WCA’s exclusivity clause was a substantive change because the legislature did not declare that the amendment was clarifying, because there was no conflict or ambiguity prior to the amendment, and because the post-amendment version is not consistent with a reasonable interpretation of the pre-amendment version.28 Therefore, the Court concluded that the post-amendment version of the WCA does not | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Kofron v. Amoco Chemicals Corp.
green
1 sentence1983Kofron v. Amoco Chemicals Corp., Del.Supr., 441 A.2d 226 (1982); Lee v. AC & S, Inc., supra. To the extent the conspiracy charge is based on AC & S’s role as a supplier generally, it lacks the required nexus of exposure. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.