8 Delaware opinions name it 2 courts 1936–2023 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Cumberbatchgreen2 sentences2021In fact, in that case we declined to consider whether an independent cause of action could be brought for an increased risk of future cancer. 26 669 A.2d 73 (Del. 1995). 27 Id. at 75 (quoting U.S. v. Cumberbatch, 647 A.2d 1098, 1100, n.3 (Del. 1994)). 28 Id. at 74. 29 Id. at 78. 11 Mr. Sherman has not pointed to any case from this Court, nor are we aware of one, where the proximate cause test he advocates has been adopted. 2021In fact, in that case we declined to consider whether an independent cause of action could be brought for an increased risk of future cancer. 26 669 A.2d 73 (Del. 1995). 27 Id. at 75 (quoting U.S. v. Cumberbatch, 647 A.2d 1098, 1100, n.3 (Del. 1994)). 28 Id. at 74. 29 Id. at 78. 11 Mr. Sherman has not pointed to any case from this Court, nor are we aware of one, where the proximate cause test he advocates has been adopted. | 2 | 2 |
McKeon v. Goldsteingreen1 sentence2023The “uncontrollable impulse” standard the Court adopted is drawn from Porter v. Murphy, which appears to be the only Delaware case directly addressing a 18 Id. (citing Stucker v. American Stores Corp., 171 A.2d 230 , 233 (Del. 1934)). 19 McKeon v. Goldstein, 164 A.2d 260, 262-63 (Del. 1960); Galluci v. New Castle County, 1978 WL 194998 , at *2 (Del. | 1 | 1 |
Reeves v. American Airlines, Inc.green2 sentences2016Airlines, Inc., 408 A.2d 283, 284 (Del. 1979)) (“The Delaware Supreme Court has noted that a jury may demonstrate „the elimination of prior confusion by the failure to request further instruction . . . .‟”). 18 906 A.2d 103 (Del. 2006). 19 Id. at 112 . 20 Id. at 110 n.15. 21 Id. 22 Id. 9 the jury was actually confused by Bayhealth‟s Proposed Additional Sentence and the Proximate Cause instruction.23 16. 2016Airlines, Inc., 408 A.2d 283, 284 (Del. 1979)) (“The Delaware Supreme Court has noted that a jury may demonstrate „the elimination of prior confusion by the failure to request further instruction . . . .‟”). 18 906 A.2d 103 (Del. 2006). 19 Id. at 112 . 20 Id. at 110 n.15. 21 Id. 22 Id. 9 the jury was actually confused by Bayhealth‟s Proposed Additional Sentence and the Proximate Cause instruction.23 16. | 1 | 1 |
Pesta v. Warrengreen2 sentences2016Oct. 10, 2013) (“Delaware has a strong public policy favoring resolution of cases on their merits.”). 14 Russell v. K-Mart Corp., 761 A.2d 1, 5 (Del. 2000) (citing Culver, 588 A.2d at 1096 ). 15 Pesta, 2005 WL 3453825, at *2 (quoting Cabrera v. State, 747 A.2d 543, 543 (Del. 2000)). 16 Reinco, Inc. v. Thompson, 906 A.2d 103, 112 (Del. 2006). 8 note to the Court requesting clarification on Bayhealth‟s Proposed Additional Sentence and the legal definition of proximate cause.17 16. 2016Oct. 10, 2013) (“Delaware has a strong public policy favoring resolution of cases on their merits.”). 14 Russell v. K-Mart Corp., 761 A.2d 1, 5 (Del. 2000) (citing Culver, 588 A.2d at 1096 ). 15 Pesta, 2005 WL 3453825, at *2 (quoting Cabrera v. State, 747 A.2d 543, 543 (Del. 2000)). 16 Reinco, Inc. v. Thompson, 906 A.2d 103, 112 (Del. 2006). 8 note to the Court requesting clarification on Bayhealth‟s Proposed Additional Sentence and the legal definition of proximate cause.17 16. | 1 | 1 |
Reinco, Inc. v. Thompsongreen2 sentences2016Airlines, Inc., 408 A.2d 283, 284 (Del. 1979)) (“The Delaware Supreme Court has noted that a jury may demonstrate „the elimination of prior confusion by the failure to request further instruction . . . .‟”). 18 906 A.2d 103 (Del. 2006). 19 Id. at 112 . 20 Id. at 110 n.15. 21 Id. 22 Id. 9 the jury was actually confused by Bayhealth‟s Proposed Additional Sentence and the Proximate Cause instruction.23 16. 2016Airlines, Inc., 408 A.2d 283, 284 (Del. 1979)) (“The Delaware Supreme Court has noted that a jury may demonstrate „the elimination of prior confusion by the failure to request further instruction . . . .‟”). 18 906 A.2d 103 (Del. 2006). 19 Id. at 112 . 20 Id. at 110 n.15. 21 Id. 22 Id. 9 the jury was actually confused by Bayhealth‟s Proposed Additional Sentence and the Proximate Cause instruction.23 16. | 1 | 1 |
Russell v. K-Mart Corp.green2 sentences2016Oct. 10, 2013) (“Delaware has a strong public policy favoring resolution of cases on their merits.”). 14 Russell v. K-Mart Corp., 761 A.2d 1, 5 (Del. 2000) (citing Culver, 588 A.2d at 1096 ). 15 Pesta, 2005 WL 3453825, at *2 (quoting Cabrera v. State, 747 A.2d 543, 543 (Del. 2000)). 16 Reinco, Inc. v. Thompson, 906 A.2d 103, 112 (Del. 2006). 8 note to the Court requesting clarification on Bayhealth‟s Proposed Additional Sentence and the legal definition of proximate cause.17 16. 2016Oct. 10, 2013) (“Delaware has a strong public policy favoring resolution of cases on their merits.”). 14 Russell v. K-Mart Corp., 761 A.2d 1, 5 (Del. 2000) (citing Culver, 588 A.2d at 1096 ). 15 Pesta, 2005 WL 3453825, at *2 (quoting Cabrera v. State, 747 A.2d 543, 543 (Del. 2000)). 16 Reinco, Inc. v. Thompson, 906 A.2d 103, 112 (Del. 2006). 8 note to the Court requesting clarification on Bayhealth‟s Proposed Additional Sentence and the legal definition of proximate cause.17 16. | 1 | 1 |
Cabrera v. Statered2 sentences2016Oct. 10, 2013) (“Delaware has a strong public policy favoring resolution of cases on their merits.”). 14 Russell v. K-Mart Corp., 761 A.2d 1, 5 (Del. 2000) (citing Culver, 588 A.2d at 1096 ). 15 Pesta, 2005 WL 3453825, at *2 (quoting Cabrera v. State, 747 A.2d 543, 543 (Del. 2000)). 16 Reinco, Inc. v. Thompson, 906 A.2d 103, 112 (Del. 2006). 8 note to the Court requesting clarification on Bayhealth‟s Proposed Additional Sentence and the legal definition of proximate cause.17 16. 2016Oct. 10, 2013) (“Delaware has a strong public policy favoring resolution of cases on their merits.”). 14 Russell v. K-Mart Corp., 761 A.2d 1, 5 (Del. 2000) (citing Culver, 588 A.2d at 1096 ). 15 Pesta, 2005 WL 3453825, at *2 (quoting Cabrera v. State, 747 A.2d 543, 543 (Del. 2000)). 16 Reinco, Inc. v. Thompson, 906 A.2d 103, 112 (Del. 2006). 8 note to the Court requesting clarification on Bayhealth‟s Proposed Additional Sentence and the legal definition of proximate cause.17 16. | 1 | 1 |
Baker v. Reidgreen1 sentence1995See Frederick, 171 A. at 186 (“The doctrine of ‘last clear chance’ is a special application of the doctrine of proximate cause.”); see also Baker v. Reid, Del.Supr., 57 A.2d 103, 108 (1947); Poore, 108 A.2d at 369 ; Showell v. Atkins, Del.Supr., 483 A.2d 1113 (1984). | 1 | 1 |
Island Express, Inc. v. Frederickgreen1 sentence1995See Frederick, 171 A. at 186 (“The doctrine of ‘last clear chance’ is a special application of the doctrine of proximate cause.”); see also Baker v. Reid, Del.Supr., 57 A.2d 103, 108 (1947); Poore, 108 A.2d at 369 ; Showell v. Atkins, Del.Supr., 483 A.2d 1113 (1984). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Delaware. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Anderson
green
2 sentences2021In fact, in that case we declined to consider whether an independent cause of action could be brought for an increased risk of future cancer. 26 669 A.2d 73 (Del. 1995). 27 Id. at 75 (quoting U.S. v. Cumberbatch, 647 A.2d 1098, 1100, n.3 (Del. 1994)). 28 Id. at 74. 29 Id. at 78. 11 Mr. Sherman has not pointed to any case from this Court, nor are we aware of one, where the proximate cause test he advocates has been adopted. 2021In fact, in that case we declined to consider whether an independent cause of action could be brought for an increased risk of future cancer. 26 669 A.2d 73 (Del. 1995). 27 Id. at 75 (quoting U.S. v. Cumberbatch, 647 A.2d 1098, 1100, n.3 (Del. 1994)). 28 Id. at 74. 29 Id. at 78. 11 Mr. Sherman has not pointed to any case from this Court, nor are we aware of one, where the proximate cause test he advocates has been adopted. | 2 | 2021–2021 |
Culver v. Bennett
green
2 sentences2016Oct. 10, 2013) (“Delaware has a strong public policy favoring resolution of cases on their merits.”). 14 Russell v. K-Mart Corp., 761 A.2d 1, 5 (Del. 2000) (citing Culver, 588 A.2d at 1096 ). 15 Pesta, 2005 WL 3453825, at *2 (quoting Cabrera v. State, 747 A.2d 543, 543 (Del. 2000)). 16 Reinco, Inc. v. Thompson, 906 A.2d 103, 112 (Del. 2006). 8 note to the Court requesting clarification on Bayhealth‟s Proposed Additional Sentence and the legal definition of proximate cause.17 16. 2016Oct. 10, 2013) (“Delaware has a strong public policy favoring resolution of cases on their merits.”). 14 Russell v. K-Mart Corp., 761 A.2d 1, 5 (Del. 2000) (citing Culver, 588 A.2d at 1096 ). 15 Pesta, 2005 WL 3453825, at *2 (quoting Cabrera v. State, 747 A.2d 543, 543 (Del. 2000)). 16 Reinco, Inc. v. Thompson, 906 A.2d 103, 112 (Del. 2006). 8 note to the Court requesting clarification on Bayhealth‟s Proposed Additional Sentence and the legal definition of proximate cause.17 16. | 2 | 1995–2016 |
Laws v. Webb
green
1 sentence2023The “uncontrollable impulse” standard the Court adopted is drawn from Porter v. Murphy, which appears to be the only Delaware case directly addressing a 18 Id. (citing Stucker v. American Stores Corp., 171 A.2d 230 , 233 (Del. 1934)). 19 McKeon v. Goldstein, 164 A.2d 260, 262-63 (Del. 1960); Galluci v. New Castle County, 1978 WL 194998 , at *2 (Del. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Lord v. Poore
green
1 sentence1995See Frederick, 171 A. at 186 (“The doctrine of ‘last clear chance’ is a special application of the doctrine of proximate cause.”); see also Baker v. Reid, Del.Supr., 57 A.2d 103, 108 (1947); Poore, 108 A.2d at 369 ; Showell v. Atkins, Del.Supr., 483 A.2d 1113 (1984). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Showell ex rel. Showell v. Atkins
neutral
1 sentence1995See Frederick, 171 A. at 186 (“The doctrine of ‘last clear chance’ is a special application of the doctrine of proximate cause.”); see also Baker v. Reid, Del.Supr., 57 A.2d 103, 108 (1947); Poore, 108 A.2d at 369 ; Showell v. Atkins, Del.Supr., 483 A.2d 1113 (1984). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Hupf
green
2 sentences1955In State v. Hupf, 9 Terry 254, 101 A. 2d 355, 360 , the Supreme Court of this State held that the operator of an automobile who violated a statute governing the operation of motor vehicles upon the highways of this State as the proximate cause of which violation a death ensued, was guilty of involuntary manslaughter. 1955In State v. Hupf, 9 Terry 254, 101 A. 2d 355, 360 , the Supreme Court of this State held that the operator of an automobile who violated a statute governing the operation of motor vehicles upon the highways of this State as the proximate cause of which violation a death ensued, was guilty of involuntary manslaughter. | 1 | 1955–1955 |
Southern Railway Co. v. Webb
green
2 sentences1936Co. v. Webb, 116 Ga. 152 , 42 S. E. 395, 396 , 59 L. 1936Co. v. Webb, 116 Ga. 152 , 42 S. E. 395, 396 , 59 L. | 1 | 1936–1936 |
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.