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 1982–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Estate of Osborn Ex Rel. Osborn v. Kempgreen2 sentences2022Chao asserts that the Riverside Parties “have breached the contract they entered into with [Chao] in which [she] would become a 4% owner of Riverside if [she] met the vesting conditions.” 208 Chao argues that they breached that intended that the contract would bind them, (2) the terms of the contract are sufficiently definite, and (3) the parties exchange legal consideration.’”) (quoting 991 A.2d 1153, 1158 (Del. 2010)); Schaeffer, 2021 WL 5579050 , at *16 (“A contract must contain all material terms in order to be enforceable . . . . 2022Chao asserts that the Riverside Parties “have breached the contract they entered into with [Chao] in which [she] would become a 4% owner of Riverside if [she] met the vesting conditions.” 208 Chao argues that they breached that intended that the contract would bind them, (2) the terms of the contract are sufficiently definite, and (3) the parties exchange legal consideration.’”) (quoting 991 A.2d 1153, 1158 (Del. 2010)); Schaeffer, 2021 WL 5579050 , at *16 (“A contract must contain all material terms in order to be enforceable . . . . | 2 | 2 |
Kahn v. Tremont Corp.green2 sentences2011Tremont, 694 A.2d at 429 (Del.1997) (citation omitted). 84 . 2011Tremont, 694 A.2d at 429 (Del.1997) (citation omitted). . | 2 | 2 |
Beard Research, Inc. v. Katesgreen1 sentence2024Oct. 23, 2002) (explaining that the preponderance standard of proof “means that certain evidence, when compared to the evidence opposed to it, has the more convincing force and makes you believe that something is more likely true than not” (citation omitted)). 238 See Brookfield Asset Mgmt., Inc. v. Rosson, 261 A.3d 1251 , 1277 (Del. 2021) (describing the double recovery rule). 239 See Beard Rsch., Inc. v. Kates, 8 A.3d 573, 601 (Del. | 1 | 1 |
In re Southern Peru Copper Corp. Shareholder Derivative Litigationgreen1 sentence2019Litig., 52 A.3d 761, 792 (Del. | 1 | 1 |
Applebaum v. Avaya, Inc.green1 sentence2011See Applebaum, 812 A.2d at 893 . | 1 | 1 |
Ryan v. Giffordgreen1 sentence2007Compare HFTP Invs., LLC v. ARIAD Pharms., Inc., 752 A.2d 115, 121 (Del.Ch.1999) (applying the preponderance test on a motion to stay in the context of a direct action) with Ryan, 918 A.2d at 351 (applying the "overwhelming hardship” test to a motion to stay in the context of a derivative lawsuit). | 1 | 1 |
HFTP Investments, L.L.C. v. ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc.green1 sentence2007Compare HFTP Invs., LLC v. ARIAD Pharms., Inc., 752 A.2d 115, 121 (Del.Ch.1999) (applying the preponderance test on a motion to stay in the context of a direct action) with Ryan, 918 A.2d at 351 (applying the "overwhelming hardship” test to a motion to stay in the context of a derivative lawsuit). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Delaware. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Diamond Fuel Oil v. O'NEAL
green
1 sentence2024The Board agrees.”). 116 Opening Br. at 17 (emphasis in original). 117 See Board Decision at 31 (explaining that Ms. Hudson “could have been exposed to COVID- 19 outside of work, specifically from either of her sons, both of whom contracted COVID-19 during the same time frame”). 118 Id. at 31 n.1. 119 Cf. Fowler I, 2022 WL 807327 , at *7 (concluding that a “brief acknowledgement of the preponderance standard” was “belied by the Board’s analysis of the facts . . . in reaching its decision”). 120 Opening Br. at 15. 121 734 A.2d 1060 (Del. 1999). 16 v. Ebersole122 as examples in which the prevale | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Walsh v. Bailey
green
1 sentence1982The preponderance standard, prior to Santosky, supra, was applied by this court following the instruction of the Supreme Court of Delaware in Matter of Five Minor Children, supra. The third standard of evidence is clear and convincing evidence, a higher evi-dentiary standard than mere preponderance Walsh v. Bailey, Del.Supr., 197 A.2d 331 (1964), 32A C.J.S., Evidence § 1023 and 29 Am.Jur.2d, Evidence § 1167. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Matter of Five Minor Children
green
1 sentence1982The preponderance standard, prior to Santosky, supra, was applied by this court following the instruction of the Supreme Court of Delaware in Matter of Five Minor Children, supra. The third standard of evidence is clear and convincing evidence, a higher evi-dentiary standard than mere preponderance Walsh v. Bailey, Del.Supr., 197 A.2d 331 (1964), 32A C.J.S., Evidence § 1023 and 29 Am.Jur.2d, Evidence § 1167. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Patricia A.F. v. James R.F.
green
1 sentence1982This is the standard of evidence now required for termination of parental rights by virtue of Santosky, supra, and Patricia A.F.V. v. James R.F., supra. 5 The Supreme Court of the United States in Santosky, supra, declared clear and convincing to be a higher evidentiary than mere preponderance but a lesser standard than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the fourth standard of evidence which is merely mentioned here. *769 Perhaps the most satisfactory definition of clear and convincing evidence appears in Black’s Law Dictionary 227 (5th ed. 1979), reading in part as follows: That measure or degr | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.