10 Delaware opinions name it 2 courts 1955–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Plummer & Co. Realtors v. Crisafigreen1 sentence2022In Mobil Oil Corp. v. Advanced Environmental Recycling Technologies, Inc., a federal court applying Delaware law opined that “the Supreme Court of Delaware would not recognize the fiduciary shield as an absolute bar to personal jurisdiction over a corporate employee.”65 The court reasoned that the out-of-state authorities relied on in Plummer had been called into question in their own jurisdictions and that they resulted in a construction that “would run counter to the expansive interpretation that Delaware courts have consistently 62 533 A.2d 1242, 1246 (Del. | 1 | 1 |
Levinson v. Delaware Compensation Rating Bureau, Inc.green1 sentence2020Rating Bureau, Inc., 616 A.2d 1182, 1187 (Del. 1992), which this Opinion will refer to as the “Finality Doctrine.” As the Delaware Supreme Court has explained the doctrine: A judicially created rule, the doctrine requires that where a remedy before an administrative agency is provided, relief must be sought by exhausting this remedy before the courts will either review any action by the agency or provide an independent remedy. | 1 | 1 |
Pack & Process, Inc. v. Celotex Corp.green1 sentence2020July 1, 2010) (citing Pack & Process, Inc. v. Celotex Corp., 503 A.2d 646, 658 (Del.Super.1985)). 21 Consumer Fraud Act is a legislative creation whereas the economic loss doctrine is judicially created.103 Absent a constitutional violation, and in the absence of any authority, the Court will not apply a judicially created doctrine over legislation.104 This claim also survives. | 1 | 1 |
Grimes v. DSC Communications Corp.green1 sentence2018The Garner Exception The Garner exception is a judicially created doctrine founded on the recognition that “where the corporation is in suit against its stockholders on charges of acting inimically to stockholder interests, protection of those interests as well as those of the corporation and of the public require that the availability of the privilege be subject to the right of the stockholders to show ‘good cause’ why the privilege should not apply.”42 A corporation invokes the attorney-client privilege through its officers and directors; those individuals owe a duty as fiduciaries to the st | 1 | 1 |
Lambrecht v. O'NEALgreen1 sentence2014Lambrecht v. O’Neal, 3 A.3d 277, 284 (Del.2010). | 1 | 1 |
Epstein v. Chatham Park, Inc.green1 sentence1985See Epstein v. Chatham Park, Inc., Del.Super., 153 A.2d 180, 184 (1959). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Delaware. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Layton v. Hudson
neutral
2 sentences1955Layton v. Hudson, 2 Boyce 573 , 83 A. 134 ; Petrucci v. Landon, Del.Super., 107 A.2d 236 . 1955Layton v. Hudson, 2 Boyce 573 , 83 A. 134 ; Petrucci v. Landon, Del.Super., 107 A.2d 236 . | 2 | 1955–1955 |
Petrucci v. Landon
green
2 sentences1955Layton v. Hudson, 2 Boyce 573 , 83 A. 134 ; Petrucci v. Landon, Del.Super., 107 A.2d 236 . 1955Layton v. Hudson, 2 Boyce 573 , 83 A. 134 ; Petrucci v. Landon, 9 Terry 491, 107 A.2d 236 . | 2 | 1955–1955 |
Schoon v. Smith
green
2 sentences2022As the court observed, the doctrine gained greater significance during the industrial revolution, when the “individual stockholder was in need of a means of invoking judicial power to curb managerial abuse.”37 Because equitable standing is a judicially-created doctrine, the court reasoned that it could be “judicially extended to address new circumstances.” 38 The court further reasoned that a doctrine born of necessity should be extended more broadly only to address the animating need—“preventing injustice where it is apparent that material corporate rights would not otherwise be protected.”39 2022As the court observed, the doctrine gained greater significance during the industrial revolution, when the “individual stockholder was in need of a means of invoking judicial power to curb managerial abuse.”37 Because equitable standing is a judicially-created doctrine, the court reasoned that it could be “judicially extended to address new circumstances.” 38 The court further reasoned that a doctrine born of necessity should be extended more broadly only to address the animating need—“preventing injustice where it is apparent that material corporate rights would not otherwise be protected.”39 | 1 | 2022–2022 |
cluster 291747
green
1 sentence2018Ch. 1998) (quoting Garner, 430 F.2d at 1103–04). 43 Zirn, 621 A.2d at 781 . 10 “management has a legitimate concern that its confidential communications should be allowed to remain confidential.”44 Thus, the Garner exception balances “the privilege’s purpose of encouraging open communication between counsel and client [against] . . . the right of a stockholder to understand what advice was given to fiduciaries who are charged with breaching their duties.”45 Our Supreme Court has described the Garner exception as “narrow, exacting, and intended to be very difficult to satisfy.”46 Garner provide | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Zirn v. VLI Corp.
green
1 sentence2018Ch. 1998) (quoting Garner, 430 F.2d at 1103–04). 43 Zirn, 621 A.2d at 781 . 10 “management has a legitimate concern that its confidential communications should be allowed to remain confidential.”44 Thus, the Garner exception balances “the privilege’s purpose of encouraging open communication between counsel and client [against] . . . the right of a stockholder to understand what advice was given to fiduciaries who are charged with breaching their duties.”45 Our Supreme Court has described the Garner exception as “narrow, exacting, and intended to be very difficult to satisfy.”46 Garner provide | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Kessler v. Armstrong Cork Co.
green
1 sentence1958He argues, however, that under a judicially created rule Holland will give binding effect to a foreign judgment under some circumstances and that plaintiffs have failed to sustain their burden of showing that under Dutch law binding effect would not be given to a Delaware determination, citing Kessler v. Armstrong Cork, 2 Cir., 158 F. 744 (there was no offer in this case to prove the foreign law concerning foreign judgments); Gull v. Constam, D.C., 105 F.Supp. 107 (held that absence of reciprocity must be pleaded by one relying upon it). | 1 | 1958–1958 |
Gull v. Constam
green
1 sentence1958He argues, however, that under a judicially created rule Holland will give binding effect to a foreign judgment under some circumstances and that plaintiffs have failed to sustain their burden of showing that under Dutch law binding effect would not be given to a Delaware determination, citing Kessler v. Armstrong Cork, 2 Cir., 158 F. 744 (there was no offer in this case to prove the foreign law concerning foreign judgments); Gull v. Constam, D.C., 105 F.Supp. 107 (held that absence of reciprocity must be pleaded by one relying upon it). | 1 | 1958–1958 |
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.