6 Delaware opinions name it 3 courts 1992–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Eagle Force Holdings, LLC v. Campbellgreen1 sentence2026Ct. Op.]. 14 Id. at *4. 15 Id. at *5 (quoting 2010 Agreement at 1). 16 Id. at *5 (quoting Eagle Force Holdings, LLC v. Campbell, 187 A.3d 1209, 1233 (Del. 2018)). 17 Id. at *7. 6 compensated Turner.”18 According to the court, because there was “no evidence FAME ever objected to this arrangement” and “there [was] no dispute that Defendants received the Stock at vesting,” the court concluded that the claim “arose when the Stock vested.”19 Further, relying on dictionary definitions, the court found FAME’s position – that the marketing fee became payable when EmTurn sold the Li-Ning stock – incons | 1 | 1 |
Henry v. Stategreen1 sentence2008Henry v. State, 2007 WL 2254550, *3 (Del. | 1 | 1 |
Elster v. American Airlinesgreen1 sentence2007The court concluded that the claim attacking the option grant that predated Elster’s purchase of shares was barred by the contemporaneous ownership rule, holding that "[t]he wrong or injury of which plaintiff complains is the option contract, not the purchase price and sale of stock pursuant thereto.” Id. at 224. 42 . 76 A.2d 121 (Del.Ch.1950). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Delaware. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In re Primedia, Inc. Shareholders Litigation
green
1 sentence2021The court stated that even if the Brophy claim “was a toss-up, or even a 1–in–5 proposition, the risk-adjusted, pre-interest recoveries for the minority of $40 million and $16 million, respectively, remain material when compared to their $133 million share of the proceeds from the Merger.”79 As we interpret the court’s percentage risk adjustment, it served only as a hypothetical to illustrate the strength and materiality of the plaintiffs’ claims even if there were obstacles to recovery. 78 In re Massey Energy Co., 2011 WL 2176479 , at *28–29. 79 Primedia, 67 A.3d at 483 . 31 In any event, on | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Harrah's Entertainment, Inc. v. JCC Holding Co.
green
1 sentence2012Id. at 312-13 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Newkirk v. WJ Rainey, Inc.
green
1 sentence2007The court concluded that the claim attacking the option grant that predated Elster’s purchase of shares was barred by the contemporaneous ownership rule, holding that "[t]he wrong or injury of which plaintiff complains is the option contract, not the purchase price and sale of stock pursuant thereto.” Id. at 224. 42 . 76 A.2d 121 (Del.Ch.1950). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
In Re Paternity of JLV
green
1 sentence1992Id. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.