class claim in Delaware

6 Delaware opinions name it 4 courts 1947–2017 0 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.

Followed or applied (8)

Case	Followed	Cited
Johnson v. GEICO Casualty Co.green ded · 2009 · cited in 1 Delaware opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 1 sentence 2017See Johnson I, 673 F. Supp. 2d at 276 n.14; Johnson II, 310 F.R.D. at 253 . 52 Pears@n, 361 P.3d ai 31. 36 a similar conclusion in cases involving motions to certify a class in a challenge to misrepresentations regarding low-yield cigarettes93 The second reason Plaintiff is not entitled to an inference of causation is that Dr. Goldberg’s report does not, as Plaintiff contends support the inference Even if l assume Dr. Goldberg’s report is admissible notwithstanding Philip Morris’s Motion to Strike, the report does not sustain the conclusion that Philip Morris could not have marketed Marlboro L	1	1
Malpiede v. Townsongreen del · 2001 · cited in 1 Delaware opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 1 sentence 2016Whether the Disclosure Claims in Count VI Fail Under Court of Chancery Rule 12(b)(6) Count VI of the Second Amended Complaint purports to bring a class claim against the Board members for breaching their fiduciary duties of care and loyalty by “issuing the materially misleading and incomplete 2014 Proxy Statement.” 176 Defendants have moved to dismiss this claim under Court of Chancery Rule 12(b)(6) on the basis of three principal arguments: (1) failure to plead materiality adequately; (2) failure to prove reliance and causation, or some other “connection” between the disclosures and the elect	1	1
Shell Petroleum, Inc. v. Smithgreen del · 1992 · cited in 1 Delaware opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 1 sentence 2016Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of—the injury has to be fairly . . . trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant, and not . . . th[e] result [of] the 182 RBC, 2015 WL 7721882, at *29 (“Whether disclosures are adequate ‘is a mixed [question] of law and fact, requiring an assessment of the inferences a reasonable shareholder would draw and the significance of those inferences to the individual shareholder.’” (quoting Shell Petroleum, Inc. v. Smith, 606 A.2d 112, 114 (Del. 1992))); Millenco L.P. v. meVC Draper Fisher Jurvetson Fund	1	1
Millenco L.P. v. meVC Draper Fisher Jurvetson Fund I, Inc.green delch · 2002 · cited in 1 Delaware opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 1 sentence 2016Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of—the injury has to be fairly . . . trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant, and not . . . th[e] result [of] the 182 RBC, 2015 WL 7721882, at *29 (“Whether disclosures are adequate ‘is a mixed [question] of law and fact, requiring an assessment of the inferences a reasonable shareholder would draw and the significance of those inferences to the individual shareholder.’” (quoting Shell Petroleum, Inc. v. Smith, 606 A.2d 112, 114 (Del. 1992))); Millenco L.P. v. meVC Draper Fisher Jurvetson Fund	1	1
RBC Capital Markets, LLC v. Jervisgreen del · 2015 · cited in 1 Delaware opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 2 sentences 2016Whether the Disclosure Claims in Count VI Fail Under Court of Chancery Rule 12(b)(6) Count VI of the Second Amended Complaint purports to bring a class claim against the Board members for breaching their fiduciary duties of care and loyalty by “issuing the materially misleading and incomplete 2014 Proxy Statement.” 176 Defendants have moved to dismiss this claim under Court of Chancery Rule 12(b)(6) on the basis of three principal arguments: (1) failure to plead materiality adequately; (2) failure to prove reliance and causation, or some other “connection” between the disclosures and the elect 2016Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of—the injury has to be fairly . . . trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant, and not . . . th[e] result [of] the 182 RBC, 2015 WL 7721882, at *29 (“Whether disclosures are adequate ‘is a mixed [question] of law and fact, requiring an assessment of the inferences a reasonable shareholder would draw and the significance of those inferences to the individual shareholder.’” (quoting Shell Petroleum, Inc. v. Smith, 606 A.2d 112, 114 (Del. 1992))); Millenco L.P. v. meVC Draper Fisher Jurvetson Fund	1	1
Malone v. Brincatgreen del · 1998 · cited in 1 Delaware opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 1 sentence 2016Whether the Disclosure Claims in Count VI Fail Under Court of Chancery Rule 12(b)(6) Count VI of the Second Amended Complaint purports to bring a class claim against the Board members for breaching their fiduciary duties of care and loyalty by “issuing the materially misleading and incomplete 2014 Proxy Statement.” 176 Defendants have moved to dismiss this claim under Court of Chancery Rule 12(b)(6) on the basis of three principal arguments: (1) failure to plead materiality adequately; (2) failure to prove reliance and causation, or some other “connection” between the disclosures and the elect	1	1
Crescent/Mach I Partners, L.P. v. Turnergreen delch · 2000 · cited in 1 Delaware opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 2 sentences 2016Whether the Disclosure Claims in Count VI Fail Under Court of Chancery Rule 12(b)(6) Count VI of the Second Amended Complaint purports to bring a class claim against the Board members for breaching their fiduciary duties of care and loyalty by “issuing the materially misleading and incomplete 2014 Proxy Statement.” 176 Defendants have moved to dismiss this claim under Court of Chancery Rule 12(b)(6) on the basis of three principal arguments: (1) failure to plead materiality adequately; (2) failure to prove reliance and causation, or some other “connection” between the disclosures and the elect 2016Whether the Disclosure Claims in Count VI Fail Under Court of Chancery Rule 12(b)(6) Count VI of the Second Amended Complaint purports to bring a class claim against the Board members for breaching their fiduciary duties of care and loyalty by “issuing the materially misleading and incomplete 2014 Proxy Statement.” 176 Defendants have moved to dismiss this claim under Court of Chancery Rule 12(b)(6) on the basis of three principal arguments: (1) failure to plead materiality adequately; (2) failure to prove reliance and causation, or some other “connection” between the disclosures and the elect	1	1
Rosenblatt v. Getty Oil Co.green del · 1985 · cited in 1 Delaware opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 1 sentence 2016Whether the Disclosure Claims in Count VI Fail Under Court of Chancery Rule 12(b)(6) Count VI of the Second Amended Complaint purports to bring a class claim against the Board members for breaching their fiduciary duties of care and loyalty by “issuing the materially misleading and incomplete 2014 Proxy Statement.” 176 Defendants have moved to dismiss this claim under Court of Chancery Rule 12(b)(6) on the basis of three principal arguments: (1) failure to plead materiality adequately; (2) failure to prove reliance and causation, or some other “connection” between the disclosures and the elect	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Delaware. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (9)

Case	Cited	Years
Shockley v. Abbott Supply Company green del · 1957 2 sentences 1960Shockley v. Abbott Supply Company, 11 Terry 510 , 135 A.2d 607 . 1960Shockley v. Abbott Supply Company, 11 Terry 510 , 135 A.2d 607 .	2	1960–1960
Johnson v. Geico Casualty Co. green ded · 2015 1 sentence 2017See Johnson I, 673 F. Supp. 2d at 276 n.14; Johnson II, 310 F.R.D. at 253 . 52 Pears@n, 361 P.3d ai 31. 36 a similar conclusion in cases involving motions to certify a class in a challenge to misrepresentations regarding low-yield cigarettes93 The second reason Plaintiff is not entitled to an inference of causation is that Dr. Goldberg’s report does not, as Plaintiff contends support the inference Even if l assume Dr. Goldberg’s report is admissible notwithstanding Philip Morris’s Motion to Strike, the report does not sustain the conclusion that Philip Morris could not have marketed Marlboro L	1	2017–2017
Harff v. Kerkorian green delch · 1974 1 sentence 1975And the Court of Chancery found no assertion of fraud in the complaint, stating: “ * * * although counsel for plaintiffs at oral argument categorized the declaration of dividends as amounting to fraud, plaintiffs have failed to allege fraud in their complaint on the class claim.” 324 A.2d at 221 .	1	1975–1975
Rawlins v. Georgia green scotus · 1906 2 sentences 1947In the case of Fay v. People of the State of New York, supra, it was said “this Court, however, has never entertained a defendant’s objections to exclusion from the jury except when he was a member of the excluded class.” State v. James, 96 N.J.L. 132 , 114 A. 553 , 16 A.L.R. 1141 ; Salen v. State, 231 Wis. 489 , 286 N. W. 5 ; Commonwealth v. Duca, 312 Pa. 101 , 165 A. 825 ; McKinney v. State, 3 Wyo. 719 , 30 P. 293 , 16 L.R.A. 710 ; Harraway v. State, 203 Ark. 912 , 159 S. W. 2d 733 ; Rawlins v. State of Georgia, 201 U. S. 638 , 26 S. Ct. 560 , 50 L. 1947In the case of Fay v. People of the State of New York, supra, it was said “this Court, however, has never entertained a defendant’s objections to exclusion from the jury except when he was a member of the excluded class.” State v. James, 96 N.J.L. 132 , 114 A. 553 , 16 A.L.R. 1141 ; Salen v. State, 231 Wis. 489 , 286 N. W. 5 ; Commonwealth v. Duca, 312 Pa. 101 , 165 A. 825 ; McKinney v. State, 3 Wyo. 719 , 30 P. 293 , 16 L.R.A. 710 ; Harraway v. State, 203 Ark. 912 , 159 S. W. 2d 733 ; Rawlins v. State of Georgia, 201 U. S. 638 , 26 S. Ct. 560 , 50 L.	1	1947–1947
Salen v. State neutral wis · 1939 2 sentences 1947In the case of Fay v. People of the State of New York, supra, it was said “this Court, however, has never entertained a defendant’s objections to exclusion from the jury except when he was a member of the excluded class.” State v. James, 96 N.J.L. 132 , 114 A. 553 , 16 A.L.R. 1141 ; Salen v. State, 231 Wis. 489 , 286 N. W. 5 ; Commonwealth v. Duca, 312 Pa. 101 , 165 A. 825 ; McKinney v. State, 3 Wyo. 719 , 30 P. 293 , 16 L.R.A. 710 ; Harraway v. State, 203 Ark. 912 , 159 S. W. 2d 733 ; Rawlins v. State of Georgia, 201 U. S. 638 , 26 S. Ct. 560 , 50 L. 1947In the case of Fay v. People of the State of New York, supra, it was said “this Court, however, has never entertained a defendant’s objections to exclusion from the jury except when he was a member of the excluded class.” State v. James, 96 N.J.L. 132 , 114 A. 553 , 16 A.L.R. 1141 ; Salen v. State, 231 Wis. 489 , 286 N. W. 5 ; Commonwealth v. Duca, 312 Pa. 101 , 165 A. 825 ; McKinney v. State, 3 Wyo. 719 , 30 P. 293 , 16 L.R.A. 710 ; Harraway v. State, 203 Ark. 912 , 159 S. W. 2d 733 ; Rawlins v. State of Georgia, 201 U. S. 638 , 26 S. Ct. 560 , 50 L.	1	1947–1947
State v. James green nj · 1921 2 sentences 1947In the case of Fay v. People of the State of New York, supra, it was said “this Court, however, has never entertained a defendant’s objections to exclusion from the jury except when he was a member of the excluded class.” State v. James, 96 N.J.L. 132 , 114 A. 553 , 16 A.L.R. 1141 ; Salen v. State, 231 Wis. 489 , 286 N. W. 5 ; Commonwealth v. Duca, 312 Pa. 101 , 165 A. 825 ; McKinney v. State, 3 Wyo. 719 , 30 P. 293 , 16 L.R.A. 710 ; Harraway v. State, 203 Ark. 912 , 159 S. W. 2d 733 ; Rawlins v. State of Georgia, 201 U. S. 638 , 26 S. Ct. 560 , 50 L. 1947In the case of Fay v. People of the State of New York, supra, it was said “this Court, however, has never entertained a defendant’s objections to exclusion from the jury except when he was a member of the excluded class.” State v. James, 96 N.J.L. 132 , 114 A. 553 , 16 A.L.R. 1141 ; Salen v. State, 231 Wis. 489 , 286 N. W. 5 ; Commonwealth v. Duca, 312 Pa. 101 , 165 A. 825 ; McKinney v. State, 3 Wyo. 719 , 30 P. 293 , 16 L.R.A. 710 ; Harraway v. State, 203 Ark. 912 , 159 S. W. 2d 733 ; Rawlins v. State of Georgia, 201 U. S. 638 , 26 S. Ct. 560 , 50 L.	1	1947–1947
McKinney v. State green wyo · 1892 2 sentences 1947In the case of Fay v. People of the State of New York, supra, it was said “this Court, however, has never entertained a defendant’s objections to exclusion from the jury except when he was a member of the excluded class.” State v. James, 96 N.J.L. 132 , 114 A. 553 , 16 A.L.R. 1141 ; Salen v. State, 231 Wis. 489 , 286 N. W. 5 ; Commonwealth v. Duca, 312 Pa. 101 , 165 A. 825 ; McKinney v. State, 3 Wyo. 719 , 30 P. 293 , 16 L.R.A. 710 ; Harraway v. State, 203 Ark. 912 , 159 S. W. 2d 733 ; Rawlins v. State of Georgia, 201 U. S. 638 , 26 S. Ct. 560 , 50 L. 1947In the case of Fay v. People of the State of New York, supra, it was said “this Court, however, has never entertained a defendant’s objections to exclusion from the jury except when he was a member of the excluded class.” State v. James, 96 N.J.L. 132 , 114 A. 553 , 16 A.L.R. 1141 ; Salen v. State, 231 Wis. 489 , 286 N. W. 5 ; Commonwealth v. Duca, 312 Pa. 101 , 165 A. 825 ; McKinney v. State, 3 Wyo. 719 , 30 P. 293 , 16 L.R.A. 710 ; Harraway v. State, 203 Ark. 912 , 159 S. W. 2d 733 ; Rawlins v. State of Georgia, 201 U. S. 638 , 26 S. Ct. 560 , 50 L.	1	1947–1947
Haraway v. State green ark · 1942 2 sentences 1947In the case of Fay v. People of the State of New York, supra, it was said “this Court, however, has never entertained a defendant’s objections to exclusion from the jury except when he was a member of the excluded class.” State v. James, 96 N.J.L. 132 , 114 A. 553 , 16 A.L.R. 1141 ; Salen v. State, 231 Wis. 489 , 286 N. W. 5 ; Commonwealth v. Duca, 312 Pa. 101 , 165 A. 825 ; McKinney v. State, 3 Wyo. 719 , 30 P. 293 , 16 L.R.A. 710 ; Harraway v. State, 203 Ark. 912 , 159 S. W. 2d 733 ; Rawlins v. State of Georgia, 201 U. S. 638 , 26 S. Ct. 560 , 50 L. 1947In the case of Fay v. People of the State of New York, supra, it was said “this Court, however, has never entertained a defendant’s objections to exclusion from the jury except when he was a member of the excluded class.” State v. James, 96 N.J.L. 132 , 114 A. 553 , 16 A.L.R. 1141 ; Salen v. State, 231 Wis. 489 , 286 N. W. 5 ; Commonwealth v. Duca, 312 Pa. 101 , 165 A. 825 ; McKinney v. State, 3 Wyo. 719 , 30 P. 293 , 16 L.R.A. 710 ; Harraway v. State, 203 Ark. 912 , 159 S. W. 2d 733 ; Rawlins v. State of Georgia, 201 U. S. 638 , 26 S. Ct. 560 , 50 L.	1	1947–1947
Commonwealth v. Duca green pa · 1933 2 sentences 1947In the case of Fay v. People of the State of New York, supra, it was said “this Court, however, has never entertained a defendant’s objections to exclusion from the jury except when he was a member of the excluded class.” State v. James, 96 N.J.L. 132 , 114 A. 553 , 16 A.L.R. 1141 ; Salen v. State, 231 Wis. 489 , 286 N. W. 5 ; Commonwealth v. Duca, 312 Pa. 101 , 165 A. 825 ; McKinney v. State, 3 Wyo. 719 , 30 P. 293 , 16 L.R.A. 710 ; Harraway v. State, 203 Ark. 912 , 159 S. W. 2d 733 ; Rawlins v. State of Georgia, 201 U. S. 638 , 26 S. Ct. 560 , 50 L. 1947In the case of Fay v. People of the State of New York, supra, it was said “this Court, however, has never entertained a defendant’s objections to exclusion from the jury except when he was a member of the excluded class.” State v. James, 96 N.J.L. 132 , 114 A. 553 , 16 A.L.R. 1141 ; Salen v. State, 231 Wis. 489 , 286 N. W. 5 ; Commonwealth v. Duca, 312 Pa. 101 , 165 A. 825 ; McKinney v. State, 3 Wyo. 719 , 30 P. 293 , 16 L.R.A. 710 ; Harraway v. State, 203 Ark. 912 , 159 S. W. 2d 733 ; Rawlins v. State of Georgia, 201 U. S. 638 , 26 S. Ct. 560 , 50 L.	1	1947–1947

Where else courts name it

CA 104 (1909–2026) TX 54 (1934–2025) NY 23 (1898–2025) TN 16 (1898–2002) IL 15 (1910–2025) PA 13 (1924–2018) OR 13 (1901–2025) MA 13 (1961–2025) AZ 12 (1946–2012) IN 11 (1880–2020) FL 10 (1965–2016) AL 9 (1908–2008) MO 9 (1921–2014) NJ 9 (1940–2024) OH 7 (1992–2020) MT 6 (1992–2025) CT 6 (1996–2006) NV 6 (1922–2015) DE 6 (1947–2017) GA 5 (1906–2018) WI 4 (1890–2021) LA 4 (2007–2013) WV 4 (1982–2013) MD 4 (1947–2014) WA 3 (1980–2022) MN 3 (1892–2006) OK 2 (2009–2024) ND 2 (1936–1938) CO 2 (1997–2006) MI 2 (1958–1958) AK 2 (1987–2010) SC 2 (1937–2018) UT 2 (2004–2015)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check