Harry BASTIAN Et Al., Appellants, v. BOURNS, INC., a Corporation of the State of California Et Al., Appellees

1970-04-16 · Supreme Court of Delaware · United States

read the judgment

1What it rests on

5Relied 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.

19711 judgments6 years silent19771 judgments6 years silent19831 judgments19852 judgments

5 judgments have relied on it, across 1971–1985

first 1971 · last 1985 · busiest 1985 (2 judgments)

1985-09-23Frieda H. RABKIN, Harry Lewis, Eric Emory, Alan Emory, Nancy Emory, Howard Greenwald, Werner Klugman and Samuel Kaufman, Plaintiffs Below, Appellants, v. PHILIP A. HUNT CHEMICAL CORPORATION, Olin Corporation, Alfred T. Blomquist, Robert T. Zetena, John M. Henske, John R. Bonniwell, Charles J. Lause, Stephen R. Petschek and George J. Haufler, Defendants Below, AppelleesSupreme Court of Delaware 1985-05-09Emanuel G. ROSENBLATT, Joseph Gruss, Carolyn Skelly Burford, Et Al., Plaintiffs Below, Appellants, v. GETTY OIL COMPANY, Defendant Below, AppelleeSupreme Court of Delaware 1983-02-01William B. WEINBERGER, Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. UOP, INC., Et Al., Defendants Below, AppelleesSupreme Court of Delaware 1977-09-23Louis S. SINGER and Mollie Singer, Plaintiffs Below, Appellants, v. the MAGNAVOX COMPANY Et Al., Defendants Below, AppelleesSupreme Court of Delaware 1971-06-15DAVID J. GREENE & CO. Et Al., Plaintiffs, v. SCHENLEY INDUSTRIES, INC., Et Al., DefendantsCourt of Chancery of Delaware

What it rests on

1969-07-31Harry BASTIAN, Jarlath W. Brady and Edwin Mulcahy, in Their Own Right and as Representatives of All Other Stockholders of Chicago Aerial Industries, Inc. Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. BOURNS, INC., a Corporation of the State of California and Bourns C. A. I., Inc., a Corporation of the State of Delaware and Chicago Aerial Industries, Inc., a Corporation of the State of Delaware, DefendantsCourt of Chancery of Delaware

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.