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.
6 Delaware opinions name it 3 courts 1982–2023 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Americas Mining Corp. v. Theriaultgreen1 sentence2023Mining Corp. v. Theriault, 51 A.3d 1213, 1255 (Del. 2012) (“When the efforts of a plaintiff on behalf of a corporation result in the creation of a common fund, the Court should award reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred by the plaintiff in achieving the benefit.”) (citation omitted). 86 Op. Br. 22. 87 Id. at 29 (calculating “a total lodestar of $106,065.70” and “an approximate multiplier of 5.6 on Plaintiffs’ counsel’s . . . total lodestar amount”). 88 Ind. Elec. | 1 | 1 |
Ramunno v. Cawleygreen1 sentence2018Delaware’s choice of law analysis follows the “most significant relationship” test from the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws Section 6.8 Under this test, the governing law is that of the state with the most significant relationship to the parties and the occurrence based on the principles listed in Section 6.9 Section 6 provides the following seven factors that the Court must consider in conducting a choice of law inquiry: 7 Doe v. Cahill, 884 A.2d 451, 458 (Del. 2005) (citing Ramunno v. Cawley, 705 A.2d 1029, 1034 (Del. 1998) (citing Solomon v. Pathe Commc ’ns Corp., 672 A.2d 35, 38 ( | 1 | 1 |
Solomon v. Pathe Communications Corp.green1 sentence2018Delaware’s choice of law analysis follows the “most significant relationship” test from the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws Section 6.8 Under this test, the governing law is that of the state with the most significant relationship to the parties and the occurrence based on the principles listed in Section 6.9 Section 6 provides the following seven factors that the Court must consider in conducting a choice of law inquiry: 7 Doe v. Cahill, 884 A.2d 451, 458 (Del. 2005) (citing Ramunno v. Cawley, 705 A.2d 1029, 1034 (Del. 1998) (citing Solomon v. Pathe Commc ’ns Corp., 672 A.2d 35, 38 ( | 1 | 1 |
Doe v. Cahillgreen1 sentence2018Delaware’s choice of law analysis follows the “most significant relationship” test from the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws Section 6.8 Under this test, the governing law is that of the state with the most significant relationship to the parties and the occurrence based on the principles listed in Section 6.9 Section 6 provides the following seven factors that the Court must consider in conducting a choice of law inquiry: 7 Doe v. Cahill, 884 A.2d 451, 458 (Del. 2005) (citing Ramunno v. Cawley, 705 A.2d 1029, 1034 (Del. 1998) (citing Solomon v. Pathe Commc ’ns Corp., 672 A.2d 35, 38 ( | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Delaware. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Aoki v. Benihana Inc.
green
1 sentence2019Perlman, Rearden LLC, 2015 WL 5724838 , at *11 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 150 cmt. e). 6 Restatement § 150(2) creates a presumption that the law of the state where a plaintiff resides applies unless there are “significantly sufficient considerations” under Restatement §§ 6 and 145 to overcome this presumption.'* Restatement § 6(2) provides the following seven factors for the Court to evaluate during a choice of law analysis: (a) needs of interstate and international systems; (b) relevant policies of the forum; (c) relevant policies of other interested states and the re | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Patterson
green
2 sentences2018C0. v. Pcn‘l‘erson,12 the Delaware Supreme Court held “the law of the state where the injury occurred should apply unless, with respect to the particular issue, some other state has a more significant relationship” under the seven factors stated in Section 6.13 In Patterson, plaintiff sued her insurance provider for uninsured motorist (“UM”) benefits after suffering injuries from an automobile accident in New Jersey.14 The insurance provider argued plaintiff was not entitled to UM benefits under Delaware law because the lOId ll Id 12 7 A.3d 454 (Dei. 2010). 13 Id. ar457. ‘41¢1. ar 455. acciden 2018C0. v. Pcn‘l‘erson,12 the Delaware Supreme Court held “the law of the state where the injury occurred should apply unless, with respect to the particular issue, some other state has a more significant relationship” under the seven factors stated in Section 6.13 In Patterson, plaintiff sued her insurance provider for uninsured motorist (“UM”) benefits after suffering injuries from an automobile accident in New Jersey.14 The insurance provider argued plaintiff was not entitled to UM benefits under Delaware law because the lOId ll Id 12 7 A.3d 454 (Dei. 2010). 13 Id. ar457. ‘41¢1. ar 455. acciden | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Deuley v. DynCorp International, Inc.
green
1 sentence2018Deuley v. DynCorp Inl"l, Inc., 8 A.3d 1156 , 1160~61 (Del. 2010). 9 (a) the chosen state has no substantial relationship to the parties or the transaction and there is no other reasonable basis for the parties' choice, or (b) application of the law of the chosen state would be contrary to a fundamental policy of a state which has a materially greater interest than the chosen state in the determination of the particular issue and which, under the rule of § 188, would be the state of the applicable law in the absence of an effective choice of law by the parties13 Delaware courts have recognized | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Hellenic Lines Ltd. v. Rhoditis
green
2 sentences1988The majority opts for the first category, and has precedent for it, since the Supreme Court in Hellenic Lines, Ltd. v. Rhoditis, 398 U.S. 306, 308 , [ 90 S.Ct. 1731, 1733 , 26 L.Ed.2d 252 ] (1970), stated, "[o]f the seven factors (relating to Jones Act coverage) ... four are in favor of the shipowner and against jurisdiction" (Emphasis added.) I suggest, however, that this was only a passing and unguarded remark. 1988The majority opts for the first category, and has precedent for it, since the Supreme Court in Hellenic Lines, Ltd. v. Rhoditis, 398 U.S. 306, 308 , [ 90 S.Ct. 1731, 1733 , 26 L.Ed.2d 252 ] (1970), stated, "[o]f the seven factors (relating to Jones Act coverage) ... four are in favor of the shipowner and against jurisdiction" (Emphasis added.) I suggest, however, that this was only a passing and unguarded remark. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Phipps v. General Motors Corp.
green
1 sentence1982The Maryland Court of Appeals adopted a seven factors test for determining whether a product was defectively designed under § 402 A. Those factors are: *1176 “ ‘(1) the usefulness and desirability of the product. (2) the availability of other and safer products to meet the same need, (3) the likelihood of injury and its probable seriousness, (4) the obviousness of the danger, (5) common knowledge and normal public expectation of the danger (particularly for established products), (6) the avoidability of injury by care in use of the product (including the effect of instructions or warnings), an | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.