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.
11 Delaware opinions name it 3 courts 2021–2026 11 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 |
|---|---|---|
Fleer Corp. v. Topps Chewing Gum, Inc.green2 sentences2025Because Eastern States and Developers’ relationship was “comprehensively governed by a contract,”259 Eastern States’ unjust enrichment claim is dismissed. 254 Fleer Corp. v. Topps Chewing Gum, Inc., 539 A.2d 1060, 1062 (Del. 1988) (quoting 66 Am. 2023A. Unjust enrichment is “the unjust retention of a benefit to the loss of another, or the retention of money or property against the fundamental principles of justice or equity and good conscience.”108 An unjust enrichment claim can be brought as a standalone claim or as a remedy for other claims, like nuisance and trespass. 109 108 Fleer Corp. v. Topps Chewing Gum, Inc., 539 A.2d 1060, 1062 (Del. 1988) (quoting 66 Am. Jur. 2d Restitution and Implied Contracts § 3 (1973)); Schock v. Nash, 732 A.2d 217, 232 (Del. 1999) (quoting same). 109 Garfield on behalf of ODP Corp. v. Allen, 277 A.3d 296 , | 3 | 3 |
Crosse v. BCBSD, INC.green2 sentences2023A constructive trust is an equitable remedy, rather than a standalone claim. 66 It is a trust “imposed by a court of equity as a remedy to correct the unlawful vesting, or 65 See Crosse v. BCBSD, Inc., 836 A.2d 492 , 496-97 (Del. 2003) (explaining when an unjust-enrichment claim is brought as “an off-the-contract theory of recovery that accompanies the breach of contract allegations[,]” the claim is a “legal, not equitable claim”, over which “[t]he Superior Court typically has jurisdiction”). 2022“The claim must be brought in the Court of Chancery.”48 However, unjust enrichment may be asserted as a possible measure of damages.49 “As a practical matter, unjust enrichment may be considered as part of damages if liability is found, but it does not survive as a standalone claim.”50 Thus, the claim 44 836 A.2d 492 (Del.). 45 Id. at 496–97. 46 Id. 47 State ex rel. | 1 | 3 |
Tooley v. Donaldson, Lufkin, & Jenrette, Inc.green1 sentence2026The Derivative Claims (Counts II, III, V, VII, X, XI, and XIII) Jones characterizes the counterclaim as presenting both direct and derivative causes of action, but does not specify which counts are derivative and which are direct.86 Under Tooley v. Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette, Inc., determining whether a claim is direct or derivative requires the court to answer two questions: “Who suffered the alleged harm—the corporation or the suing stockholder individually—and who would receive the benefit of the recovery or other remedy?” 845 A.2d 1031, 1035 (Del. 2004). | 1 | 1 |
Garfield v. Allengreen2 sentences2023Id. at *3. 112 Nemec v. Schrader, 991 A.2d 1120, 1130 (Del. 2010). 113 Garfield, 277 A.3d at 347-51. 114 836 A.2d 492, 496-97 (Del. 2003) (explaining that an unjust enrichment claim is an “off-the- contract theory of recovery” and is a legal, not an equitable claim). 35 at law is required only if an unjust enrichment claim is brought in the Court of Chancery and there is no other independent basis for equitable jurisdiction. 115 The Superior Court had jurisdiction to consider the State’s standalone unjust enrichment claim. 2023A. Unjust enrichment is “the unjust retention of a benefit to the loss of another, or the retention of money or property against the fundamental principles of justice or equity and good conscience.”108 An unjust enrichment claim can be brought as a standalone claim or as a remedy for other claims, like nuisance and trespass. 109 108 Fleer Corp. v. Topps Chewing Gum, Inc., 539 A.2d 1060, 1062 (Del. 1988) (quoting 66 Am. Jur. 2d Restitution and Implied Contracts § 3 (1973)); Schock v. Nash, 732 A.2d 217, 232 (Del. 1999) (quoting same). 109 Garfield on behalf of ODP Corp. v. Allen, 277 A.3d 296 , | 1 | 1 |
Nemec v. Shradergreen1 sentence2023Id. at *3. 112 Nemec v. Schrader, 991 A.2d 1120, 1130 (Del. 2010). 113 Garfield, 277 A.3d at 347-51. 114 836 A.2d 492, 496-97 (Del. 2003) (explaining that an unjust enrichment claim is an “off-the- contract theory of recovery” and is a legal, not an equitable claim). 35 at law is required only if an unjust enrichment claim is brought in the Court of Chancery and there is no other independent basis for equitable jurisdiction. 115 The Superior Court had jurisdiction to consider the State’s standalone unjust enrichment claim. | 1 | 1 |
Schock v. Nashgreen1 sentence2023A. Unjust enrichment is “the unjust retention of a benefit to the loss of another, or the retention of money or property against the fundamental principles of justice or equity and good conscience.”108 An unjust enrichment claim can be brought as a standalone claim or as a remedy for other claims, like nuisance and trespass. 109 108 Fleer Corp. v. Topps Chewing Gum, Inc., 539 A.2d 1060, 1062 (Del. 1988) (quoting 66 Am. Jur. 2d Restitution and Implied Contracts § 3 (1973)); Schock v. Nash, 732 A.2d 217, 232 (Del. 1999) (quoting same). 109 Garfield on behalf of ODP Corp. v. Allen, 277 A.3d 296 , | 1 | 1 |
In Re Tyson Foods, Inc. Consolidated Shareholder Litigationgreen1 sentence2021S’holder Litig., 919 A.2d 563, 584 (Del. Ch. 2007). 60 E.g., Levey v. Brownstone Asset Mgmt., LP, 76 A.3d 764, 769 (Del. 2013). | 1 | 1 |
Levey v. Brownstone Asset Management, LPgreen1 sentence2021S’holder Litig., 919 A.2d 563, 584 (Del. Ch. 2007). 60 E.g., Levey v. Brownstone Asset Mgmt., LP, 76 A.3d 764, 769 (Del. 2013). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Delaware. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wood v. State
green
1 sentence2024Because Corwin cleansing does not extinguish claims for waste, I address waste here. 95 Plaintiff sweepingly asserts that “because of Defendants’ breaches, stockholders were forced to give up value in exchange for nothing.” 96 Stockholders, however, did not get “nothing.” The Revised Merger Agreement delivered stockholders $10.4 billion in cash, representing a 41% premium over Anaplan’s five- day weighted average stock price before the Original Merger Agreement was announced. 97 In addition, in exchange for agreeing to a price reduction, Anaplan 95 “Under present Delaware law, a fully informed | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Brinckerhoff v. Enbridge Energy Company, Inc.
green
1 sentence2023A plaintiff who has pled a claim for fraud, which reformation might remedy, need not plead a formal count for reformation: she need only convince the Court that reformation is the proper remedy.47 As in James River-Pennington Inc. v. CRSS Capital, Inc., as explained in my bench ruling at oral argument, Buyer pled with sufficient particularity a claim for fraud based on 47 Brinckerhoff v. Enbridge Energy, 2012 WL 1931242 , at *2, *4 (Del. Ch. May 25, 2012) (finding the complaint states a claim that “could lead to a reformation remedy,” even when the complaint did not allege a separate discrete | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Weiss v. Swanson
green
1 sentence2022NV, 2009 WL 4345724 , at *15 (Del. Ch. Dec. 1, 2009) (breach of fiduciary duty and fraud); Weiss v. Swanson, 948 A.2d 433 , 450-51 (Del. 2008) (waste). 103 TrustCo Bank v. Mathews, 2015 WL 295373 , at *5 (Del. Ch. Jan. 22, 2015). 104 Largo Legacy Gp., LLC v. Charles, 2021 WL 2692426 , at *9 (Del. Ch. June 30, 2021) (quoting In re Tyson Foods, Inc. Consol. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Reis v. Hazelett Strip-Casting Corp.
green
1 sentence2022R. 42(b)(iii)(H). 3 would not outweigh the probable costs, such that interlocutory review would be in the interests of justice.9 First, the court concluded that the Opinion did not involve a question of law resolved for the first time in this State, because “[i]t is well established that a stockholder may assert direct claims for violation of a statute” 10 and previous decisions relating to Section 155 did not foreclose a standalone claim asserting a violation of Section 155(2).11 Second, the court disagreed with the Company’s contention that previous decisions are conflicting on the question | 1 | 2022–2022 |
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.