6 Delaware opinions name it 3 courts 1988–2020 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Elenza, Inc. v. Alcon Laboratories Holding Corporationgreen1 sentence2020Compare Elenza, 183 A.3d at 721 (applying four-part test), with Beard Res., 8 A.3d at 589–90 (not mentioning the four- part test minted in the case law and instead explaining: “To maintain a successful claim for misappropriation of trade secrets [under DUTSA], a plaintiff must show both the existence of a trade secret and its misappropriation.”). | 1 | 1 |
Beard Research, Inc. v. Katesgreen1 sentence2020Compare Elenza, 183 A.3d at 721 (applying four-part test), with Beard Res., 8 A.3d at 589–90 (not mentioning the four- part test minted in the case law and instead explaining: “To maintain a successful claim for misappropriation of trade secrets [under DUTSA], a plaintiff must show both the existence of a trade secret and its misappropriation.”). | 1 | 1 |
Weber v. Stategreen1 sentence2016The appeal therefore turns on whether there was some evidence in the record providing a rational basis for acquitting Fleetwood of burglary second degree and convicting him instead of criminal trespass first degree.6 The two crimes differ in that criminal trespass requires a person to unlawfully enter a dwelling, while burglary requires a person to unlawfully enter a dwelling with the intent to commit a crime.7 3 Weber v. State, 971 A.2d 135, 141 (Del. 2009). 4 11 Del. | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Stategreen2 sentences2008See Jones, 745 A.2d at 870 ("Our finding that the 911 complaint alone did not suffice to establish reasonable and articulable suspicion requires us to search the record for any other evidence the police might have possessed to support a finding of reasonable and articula-ble suspicion sufficient to detain Jones”). . 2008The promulgators of the four part test for determining reliability of an anonymous tip might well have found that fact to be significant. [19] Fundamentally, it is obvious to all but the most naive of objective observers, that Cronin and Roberts considered Ogden, and not Ogden's information the source, to be the "reliable informant." Unfortunately, their "reliable" source of information neglected to tell them about the fruitless search of the Mercedes an important fact in testing the consistency and reliability of the original tip. [20] See Jones, 745 A.2d at 870 ("Our finding that the 911 c | 1 | 1 |
Caldwell v. Stategreen1 sentence2008The promulgators of the four part test for determining reliability of an anonymous tip might well have found that fact to be significant. [19] Fundamentally, it is obvious to all but the most naive of objective observers, that Cronin and Roberts considered Ogden, and not Ogden's information the source, to be the "reliable informant." Unfortunately, their "reliable" source of information neglected to tell them about the fruitless search of the Mercedes an important fact in testing the consistency and reliability of the original tip. [20] See Jones, 745 A.2d at 870 ("Our finding that the 911 c | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Delaware. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lester C. Newton Trucking Company v. Neal
green
2 sentences2015Newtown Trucking Co., the Delaware Supreme Court set out a four part test that the courts should apply when determining whether a worker is an “employee” under the Act: (1) who hired the employee; (2) who may discharge the employee; (3) who pays the employee’s wages; and (4) who has the power to control the conduct of the employee when he is performing the particular job in question. 8 In Porter, the Delaware Supreme Court subsequently used this test when determining that the Act barred the negligence claims of an employee – hired and paid by a placement agency but working for another temporar 2015Newtown Trucking Co., the Delaware Supreme Court set out a four part test that the courts should apply when determining whether a worker is an “employee” under the Act: (1) who hired the employee; (2) who may discharge the employee; (3) who pays the employee’s wages; and (4) who has the power to control the conduct of the employee when he is performing the particular job in question. 8 In Porter, the Delaware Supreme Court subsequently used this test when determining that the Act barred the negligence claims of an employee – hired and paid by a placement agency but working for another temporar | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Porter v. Pathfinder Services, Inc.
green
2 sentences2015Newtown Trucking Co., the Delaware Supreme Court set out a four part test that the courts should apply when determining whether a worker is an “employee” under the Act: (1) who hired the employee; (2) who may discharge the employee; (3) who pays the employee’s wages; and (4) who has the power to control the conduct of the employee when he is performing the particular job in question. 8 In Porter, the Delaware Supreme Court subsequently used this test when determining that the Act barred the negligence claims of an employee – hired and paid by a placement agency but working for another temporar 2015Newtown Trucking Co., the Delaware Supreme Court set out a four part test that the courts should apply when determining whether a worker is an “employee” under the Act: (1) who hired the employee; (2) who may discharge the employee; (3) who pays the employee’s wages; and (4) who has the power to control the conduct of the employee when he is performing the particular job in question. 8 In Porter, the Delaware Supreme Court subsequently used this test when determining that the Act barred the negligence claims of an employee – hired and paid by a placement agency but working for another temporar | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Riley v. Moyed
green
1 sentence1988In determining whether a statement is fact or opinion the Court in Riley v. Moyed, supra, applied the four part test adopted by Ollman v. Evans, D.D.C., 750 F.2d 970 (1984): (1) considering the common usage or meaning of the specific language of the challenged statement, is the statement indefinite and ambiguous; (2) whether the statement is capable of being objectively characterized as true or false; (3) considering the entire article in which the statement appears, to what extent will the unchallenged language surrounding the allegedly defamatory statement influence the average reader’s read | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Bertell Ollman v. Rowland Evans, Robert Novak
green
1 sentence1988In determining whether a statement is fact or opinion the Court in Riley v. Moyed, supra, applied the four part test adopted by Ollman v. Evans, D.D.C., 750 F.2d 970 (1984): (1) considering the common usage or meaning of the specific language of the challenged statement, is the statement indefinite and ambiguous; (2) whether the statement is capable of being objectively characterized as true or false; (3) considering the entire article in which the statement appears, to what extent will the unchallenged language surrounding the allegedly defamatory statement influence the average reader’s read | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.