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.
8 Delaware opinions name it 3 courts 2005–2025 7 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 |
|---|---|---|
The People v. Marquan M. / County of Albanygreen2 sentences2024DRAFTING MANUAL 41 (Holly Vaughn Wagner ed., 4th ed. 2022) (noting that the best drafting practice is to “include a specific severability clause within a bill when it is deemed necessary, as this is a clearer expression of legislative intent than simply relying on § 308.”). 154 See e.g., People v. Marquan M., 19 N.E.3d 480, 487 (N.Y. 2014) (noting that excessive judicial revision of an overbroad statute may lead to vagueness problems when “the statutory language would signify one thing but, as a matter of judicial decision, would stand for something entirely different.”). 36 vagueness. 2024DRAFTING MANUAL 41 (Holly Vaughn Wagner ed., 4th ed. 2022) (noting that the best drafting practice is to “include a specific severability clause within a bill when it is deemed necessary, as this is a clearer expression of legislative intent than simply relying on § 308.”). 154 See e.g., People v. Marquan M., 19 N.E.3d 480, 487 (N.Y. 2014) (noting that excessive judicial revision of an overbroad statute may lead to vagueness problems when “the statutory language would signify one thing but, as a matter of judicial decision, would stand for something entirely different.”). 36 vagueness. | 2 | 2 |
Christina Williams v. Medley Opportunity Fund II, LPgreen1 sentence2025Fund II, LP, 965 F.3d 229, 238 (3d Cir. 2020) (citing Am. | 1 | 1 |
Solis v. Teagreen1 sentence2025Instead, he argues that the provision is contrary to law because it calls for “$500 per month regardless of the incomes of the parties, the needs of the children, and/or the residential arrangements of the children” and is not accompanied by a severability clause.124 (40) An agreement which contracts away the right of children to receive adequate and fair child support is unenforceable as a matter of law.125 Delaware courts have found a fixed child support amount to impermissibly contract away a child’s right where the contract with the fixed amount precluded any ability to adjust the fixed am | 1 | 1 |
cluster 769628green1 sentence2023If the challenge succeeds, the severability principle cannot operate to save the arbitration agreement because “the doctrine of severability presumes an underlying, existent, agreement.” Sandvik AB v. Advent Int’l Corp., 220 F.3d 99, 106 (3d Cir. 2000). | 1 | 1 |
Eagle Force Holdings, LLC v. Campbellgreen1 sentence2022See also Eagle Force, 187 A.3d at 1239 (suggesting that the trial court erred in failing to consider the effect of a valid severability clause that used substantially similar language to the Agent Agreement’s severability clause). 98 See D.I. 58 at 27 (Def.’s Post-Trial Br.) (“Balooshi breached his fiduciary duties to GVPGC through his solicitation of . . . | 1 | 1 |
Michalski v. Michalskigreen1 sentence2005See, e.g., Michalski v. Michalski, 50 N J.Super. 454, 142 A.2d 645 (1958) (holding a restrain on partition valid until the death of one of two cotenants); Rosenberg v. Rosenberg, 413 Ill. 343 , 108 N.E.2d 766 (1952) (holding an implied agreement not to partition to be valid for the period measured by the lives of the parties). 45 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Delaware. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Beard v. Elster
green
2 sentences2025Even assuming illegality is the same as unenforceability, different rules apply when there is “an illegal term within an otherwise legal agreement.”59 Given that Plaintiffs ignore those rules, I do not address them. 55 LKQ, 2024 WL 5152746 , at *5 (quoting Elster, 160 A.2d at 735–36). 56 PAB at 46. 57 Id. at 46–47 (citing Lighthouse Behav. 2025Even assuming illegality is the same as unenforceability, different rules apply when there is “an illegal term within an otherwise legal agreement.”59 Given that Plaintiffs ignore those rules, I do not address them. 55 LKQ, 2024 WL 5152746 , at *5 (quoting Elster, 160 A.2d at 735–36). 56 PAB at 46. 57 Id. at 46–47 (citing Lighthouse Behav. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Rosenberg v. Rosenberg
green
2 sentences2005See, e.g., Michalski v. Michalski, 50 N J.Super. 454, 142 A.2d 645 (1958) (holding a restrain on partition valid until the death of one of two cotenants); Rosenberg v. Rosenberg, 413 Ill. 343 , 108 N.E.2d 766 (1952) (holding an implied agreement not to partition to be valid for the period measured by the lives of the parties). 45 . 2005See, e.g., Michalski v. Michalski, 50 N J.Super. 454, 142 A.2d 645 (1958) (holding a restrain on partition valid until the death of one of two cotenants); Rosenberg v. Rosenberg, 413 Ill. 343 , 108 N.E.2d 766 (1952) (holding an implied agreement not to partition to be valid for the period measured by the lives of the parties). 45 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.