CEDE & CO. and Cinerama, Inc., Petitioners Below—Appellants, v. TECHNICOLOR, INC., Respondent Below—Appellee

2005-06-28 · Supreme Court of Delaware · United States

read the judgment

5What it rests on

2Relied on since

0Departed from

Relied on since

The judgments that cite this one. This is the answer that tells you the case is still alive.

20101 judgments16 years silent20261 judgments

2 judgments have relied on it, across 2010–2026

first 2010 · last 2026 · busiest 2010 (1 judgments)

2026-07-23Samvit Ramadurgam v. Destiny XYZ Inc.Court of Chancery of Delaware 2010-01-14ALASKA ELECTRICAL PENSION, FUND, Plaintiff Intervenor, Below Appellant, v. Stephen L. BROWN, Crady Family Trust, Michael Crady, Plaintiffs Below, Appellees, and Lyon Homes, Inc., General William Lyon, William H. Lyon, Harold H. Greene, Arthur B. Laffer, and Lawrence M. Higby, James E. Dalton, Richard E. Frankel, Gary H. Hunt, and Alex Meruelo, Defendants Below, AppelleesSupreme Court of Delaware

What it rests on

1996-08-23Marilyn ZIRN, Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. VLI CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, Robert A. Elliott, Charlotte O’Hara Vorhauer, Personal Representative of the Estate of Bruce Vorhauer, Lawrance A. Brown, Jr., Barbara Best North, and American Home Products, a Delaware Corporation, Defendants Below, AppelleesSupreme Court of Delaware 1991-04-11Ruth KAHN, Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. HOUSEHOLD ACQUISITION CORPORATION and Household Finance Corporation, Defendants Below, AppelleesSupreme Court of Delaware 1980-02-20Edith K. BELL Et Al., Petitioners Below-Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. KIRBY LUMBER CORPORATION, Respondent Below-Appellee/Cross-AppellantSupreme Court of Delaware 1972-01-04Theodore LEVITT Et Al., Plaintiffs Below, Appellees and Cross-Appellants, v. John A. BOUVIER, Jr., Defendant Below, Appellant and Cross-Appellee, and American Mushroom Corp., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant Below, AppelleeSupreme Court of Delaware 1965-08-02Application of Delaware Racing AssociationSupreme Court of Delaware

9 point outside the corpus. Read from the text, but no judgment held here answers to them. They are counted rather than hidden: this corpus is a slice, not the law.

Departed from

No judgment recorded a departure from this one.

Departure is not detected yet, and the gap is deliberate. Searching for the words the Court might use was measured on 1,019 judgments: "depart from" appears 100 times and most often means departing from the facts found by a domestic court; "overruled" appears 44 times, usually about a domestic judgment; "abandon" appears 123 times, most often as abandoned firearms. Tightened to require the Court itself as the subject, precision was still around 40%, the rest being a dissenting judge complaining, or a national supreme court departing from its own case-law. Telling a lawyer an authority is dead when it is alive is worse than saying nothing, so nothing is what this says until each candidate can be judged properly.

not characterised

Most citations carry no word at all. The Court does not always say what it is doing when it cites one of its own judgments, and where it stayed silent nothing is inferred here.