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 2 courts 2000–2024 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Chen v. Howard-Andersongreen1 sentence2024Seruma did not act in the best interest of the Company or take actions in good faith on behalf of the Company and in a manner reasonably believed to be within the scope of his authority. 284 See Chen v. Howard-Anderson, 87 A.3d 648, 666 (Del. | 1 | 1 |
Lacos Land Co. v. Arden Group, Inc.green1 sentence2020See Lacos Land, 517 A.2d at 277 (“The determination of whether it was inappropriate for [the CEO] to structure the choice of Arden’s shareholders (and its directors), as was done here, requires, first, a determination of which of his hats—shareholder, officer or director—[the CEO] was wearing when he stated his position concerning the possible withholding of his ‘support’ for future transactions unless steps were taken ‘to secure his voting position.’”). 46 the Katz decision uses the term “coercion” and is often cited as a source of governing principles. ii. | 1 | 1 |
Ryan v. Giffordgreen1 sentence2018In the case of a nonresident defendant, Delaware courts apply a two-step personal jurisdiction analysis.80 First, the Court assesses whether there is a statutory 76 Ryan v. Gifford, 935 A.2d 258, 265 (Del. | 1 | 1 |
Warburg, Pincus Ventures, L.P. v. Schrappergreen1 sentence2008Warburg, Pincus Ventures, L.P. v. Schrapper, 774 A.2d 264, 267 (Del.2001) ("[A] complaint will not be dismissed on the group of forum non conveniens without a showing of overwhelming hardship.”); accord 14D Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. | 1 | 1 |
Glazer v. Zapata Corp.green1 sentence2000See, e.g., Glazer v. Zapata, Corp., Del.Ch., 658 A.2d 176, 183 (1993) (waste claim must be supported by evidence that "an exchange ... is so one sided that no business person of ordinary, sound judgment could conclude that the corporation has received adequate consideration”), see also Brehm v. Eisner, Del.Supr., 746 A.2d 244, 263 (2000) (to effectively challenge a board's decision about executive compensation as waste, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the board acted "unconscionably]” by "irrationally squandering] or givfing] away corporate assets”). | 1 | 1 |
Brehm v. Eisnergreen1 sentence2000See, e.g., Glazer v. Zapata, Corp., Del.Ch., 658 A.2d 176, 183 (1993) (waste claim must be supported by evidence that "an exchange ... is so one sided that no business person of ordinary, sound judgment could conclude that the corporation has received adequate consideration”), see also Brehm v. Eisner, Del.Supr., 746 A.2d 244, 263 (2000) (to effectively challenge a board's decision about executive compensation as waste, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the board acted "unconscionably]” by "irrationally squandering] or givfing] away corporate assets”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Delaware. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Reis v. Hazelett Strip-Casting Corp.
green
2 sentences2024Entity law generally deploys three standards of review: a default standard that is highly deferential to the fiduciary, an intermediate standard under which the fiduciary must show that its actions were reasonable, and an onerous standard under which the fiduciary must show that its actions neither harmed the beneficiary nor conferred any undeserved benefit on the fiduciary.86 Delaware’s default standard of review is the business judgment rule. 87 The business judgment rule presumes that “in making a business decision the directors of a corporation acted on an informed basis, in good faith and 2022Reis v. Hazelett Strip-Casting Corp., 28 A.3d 442 , 457–59 (Del. | 4 | 2022–2024 |
Aronson v. Lewis
green
1 sentence2024Ch. 2011). 87 Trados II, 73 A.3d at 43 . 88 Aronson, 473 A.2d at 812 . 47 corporation’s objectives.”89 “Only when a decision lacks any rationally conceivable basis will a court infer bad faith and a breach of duty.”90 Delaware’s intermediate standard of review is enhanced scrutiny.91 Delaware courts deploy enhanced scrutiny in specific, recurring situations marked by two features. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In re Trados Inc. Shareholder Litigation
green
1 sentence2024Ch. 2011). 87 Trados II, 73 A.3d at 43 . 88 Aronson, 473 A.2d at 812 . 47 corporation’s objectives.”89 “Only when a decision lacks any rationally conceivable basis will a court infer bad faith and a breach of duty.”90 Delaware’s intermediate standard of review is enhanced scrutiny.91 Delaware courts deploy enhanced scrutiny in specific, recurring situations marked by two features. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
green
1 sentence2020DelDOT’s position is that it only needs to articulate a non-discriminatory reason for the adverse action in order to meet its burden.** Nevertheless, if DelIDOT meets this burden, * 411 U.S. 792 (1973); Miller v. State of Delaware, Dep't of Pub. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.