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.
9 Delaware opinions name it 4 courts 1982–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Tonnessen v. Denver Publishing Co.green1 sentence2025Co., 5 P.3d 959, 964 (Colo. App. 2000); see Wilson, 126 P.3d at 280 (“A reporter or publisher must be allowed to convey statements that members of the public would have heard had they attended the public proceeding.”); Meeker v. Post Printing & Pub. | 1 | 1 |
Wilson v. Meyergreen1 sentence2025Co., 5 P.3d 959, 964 (Colo. App. 2000); see Wilson, 126 P.3d at 280 (“A reporter or publisher must be allowed to convey statements that members of the public would have heard had they attended the public proceeding.”); Meeker v. Post Printing & Pub. | 1 | 1 |
Savor, Inc. v. FMR Corp.green1 sentence2023Integration, Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 2009 WL 264088 , at *7 (Del. Ch. Feb. 3, 2009)); see also PharmAthene, Inc. v. SIGA Techs., Inc., 2008 WL 151855 , at *15 (Del. Ch. Jan. 16, 2008); Savor, Inc. v. FMR Corp., 812 A.2d 894, 896-97 (Del. 2002) (setting forth the operative reasonable conceivability standard). 34 Pulieri, 2015 WL 691449 , at *6 (determining at the pleadings stage that the plaintiff would be unable to meet the clear and convincing evidence standard to obtain specific performance). 2022-0325-SEM August 30, 2023 the time of performance is expressly made of the essence of a c | 1 | 1 |
Morgan v. Wellsgreen1 sentence2023Specific performance is therefore unavailable to the plaintiff unless it is “excused from performance of that obligation.”37 The plaintiff maintains that its failure to close is excused because Associates could not deliver a marketable title due to the lockout.38 It avers that the closing date should be extended until the lockout’s expiration.39 But it is not reasonably conceivable, based on the allegations in the Complaint, that Associates prevented Apartments from closing by March 10. 35 Morgan v. Wells, 80 A.2d 504, 506 (Del. Ch. 1951) (citations omitted). 36 HFIN, Inc. v. Intel Corp., 2007 | 1 | 1 |
Global Reinsurance Corp. v. Equitas Ltdgreen1 sentence2023Reinsurance Corp. U.S. Branch v. Equitas Ltd., 969 N.E.2d 187, 195 (N.Y. 2012). 50 Id. at 8-9. | 1 | 1 |
DiSabatino v. Salicetegreen1 sentence2021In Delaware, “[t]he sanction of imprisonment can be imposed for either civil or criminal contempt of court.” DiSabatino v. Salicete, 671 A.2d 1344, 1350 (Del. 1996). 24 v. Affordable Media, 179 F.3d 1228, 1239 (9th Cir. 1999)). 101 Since then, this court has regularly applied the clear and convincing evidence standard, almost invariably relying upon TR Investors. | 1 | 1 |
Federal Trade Commission v. Affordable Media, LLCgreen1 sentence2021In Delaware, “[t]he sanction of imprisonment can be imposed for either civil or criminal contempt of court.” DiSabatino v. Salicete, 671 A.2d 1344, 1350 (Del. 1996). 24 v. Affordable Media, 179 F.3d 1228, 1239 (9th Cir. 1999)). 101 Since then, this court has regularly applied the clear and convincing evidence standard, almost invariably relying upon TR Investors. | 1 | 1 |
Rolex Watch v. Crowleygreen2 sentences2021See TR Investors, 2009 WL 4696062 , at *15 n.53 (citing Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. Crowley, 74 F.3d 716, 720 (6th Cir. 1996) and F.T.C. 99 Id. 2021See TR Investors, 2009 WL 4696062 , at *15 n.53 (citing Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. Crowley, 74 F.3d 716, 720 (6th Cir. 1996) and F.T.C. 99 Id. | 1 | 1 |
Cerberus International, Ltd. v. Apollo Management L.P.green2 sentences2018“To establish proof by clear and convincing evidence means to prove something that is highly probable, reasonably certain, and free from serious doubt.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Del. 2018Oct. 23, 2002)). 284 “The clear and convincing evidence standard requires evidence that produces in the mind of the trier of fact an abiding conviction that the truth of [the] factual contentions [is] highly probable.” Hudak v. Procek, 806 A.2d 140, 147 (Del. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Cerberus Int’l, Ltd. v. Apollo Mgmt., L.P., 794 A.2d 1141, 1151 (Del. 2002)). | 1 | 1 |
Hudak v. Procekgreen1 sentence2018Oct. 23, 2002)). 284 “The clear and convincing evidence standard requires evidence that produces in the mind of the trier of fact an abiding conviction that the truth of [the] factual contentions [is] highly probable.” Hudak v. Procek, 806 A.2d 140, 147 (Del. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Cerberus Int’l, Ltd. v. Apollo Mgmt., L.P., 794 A.2d 1141, 1151 (Del. 2002)). | 1 | 1 |
Powell v. Department of Services for Children, Youth & Their Familiesgreen1 sentence2016C. § 2412(a)(2)(d). 29 See Powell v. Dep’t of Servs. for Children, Youth & Their Families, 963 A.2d 724, 738 (Del. 2008), as corrected (Dec. 23, 2008) (“Although this particular paragraph in the opinion does not include the phrase ‘clear and convincing evidence,’ it is apparent from the opinion in its totality that the court made its findings . . . under the clear and convincing evidence standard.”). 30 Fam. | 1 | 1 |
Cruzan Ex Rel. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Healthgreen2 sentences1995The Court acknowledged that competent persons may generally refuse medical treatment even at the risk of death, because the “right to self-determination ordinarily outweighs any countervailing state interests....” Id. at 273, 110 S.Ct. at 2848 . 4 Nevertheless, the Court concluded that, in determining the proper balance between those competing interests after a person becomes incompetent, “a State may apply a clear and convincing evidence standard in proceedings where a guardian seeks to discontinue nutrition and hydration of a person diagnosed to be in a persistent vegetative state.” Id. at 2 1995The Court acknowledged that competent persons may generally refuse medical treatment even at the risk of death, because the “right to self-determination ordinarily outweighs any countervailing state interests....” Id. at 273, 110 S.Ct. at 2848 . 4 Nevertheless, the Court concluded that, in determining the proper balance between those competing interests after a person becomes incompetent, “a State may apply a clear and convincing evidence standard in proceedings where a guardian seeks to discontinue nutrition and hydration of a person diagnosed to be in a persistent vegetative state.” Id. at 2 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Delaware. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Leo Investments Hong Kong Limited v. Tomales Bay Capital Anduril III, L.P.
green
1 sentence2026(Post-Trial Op. at 64-65) (stating that, even under the heightened clear-and-convincing- evidence standard, Kahlon “proved that their actions were entirely fair to the Fund and its partners as a whole,” and Kahlon’s quick action prevented any further harm to the Fund’s ability to invest in SpaceX). 33 Id. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Brody v. Brody
green
1 sentence2021Brody v. Brody, 105 A.3d 887 , 897–98 (Conn. 2015). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Peyton v. Peyton
neutral
1 sentence2021Heartland also relies on the Delaware Supreme Court’s affirmance of Family Court decisions that applied the clear and convincing evidence standard. 102 101 Because this court determined that the higher standard had been met, there was no occasion to raise the issue on appeal, and the Supreme Court did not address it. 102 E.g., Layton v. Layton, 196 A.3d 413 (Del. 2018) (TABLE); Peyton v. Peyton, 152 A.3d 582 (Del. 2016) (TABLE); Sparks v. Matthews, 83 A.3d 738 (Del. 2013) (TABLE). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Layton v. Layton
neutral
1 sentence2021Heartland also relies on the Delaware Supreme Court’s affirmance of Family Court decisions that applied the clear and convincing evidence standard. 102 101 Because this court determined that the higher standard had been met, there was no occasion to raise the issue on appeal, and the Supreme Court did not address it. 102 E.g., Layton v. Layton, 196 A.3d 413 (Del. 2018) (TABLE); Peyton v. Peyton, 152 A.3d 582 (Del. 2016) (TABLE); Sparks v. Matthews, 83 A.3d 738 (Del. 2013) (TABLE). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Genger v. TR INVESTORS, LLC
green
1 sentence2021Dec. 9, 2009), aff’d, 26 A.3d 180 (Del. 2011), the court applied the clear and convincing evidence standard, relying on federal authority. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the State of Florida v. Wellington Precious Metals, Inc., Daniel Weiss
green
2 sentences2021Wellington, 950 F.2d at 1528 . 2021Br.”) 29. 22 Unlike our state court system, federal courts consistently apply the clear and convincing evidence standard to motions for civil contempt. 98 In Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Wellington Precious Metals, Inc., 950 F.2d 1525 (11th Cir. 1992), the Eleventh Circuit explained that the burden of proof to establish civil contempt of an order may be different than the burden that was required to prove the necessity of that order, which in that case was a preponderance of the evidence at trial. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Patricia A.F. v. James R.F.
green
1 sentence1982Therefore, I see no reason in light of Santosky, supra, and Patricia A.F.V. v. James R.F., supra, for modifying in any respect my factual conclusions and/or order terminating petitioners’ parental rights over the child in question. 1 . | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.