Bertha E. Maurer, vs. International Re-Insurance Corporation, a Corporation Organized and Existing Under the Laws of the State of Delaware. Appeal of William Prickett From the Order of the Chancellor Dated January 27, 1953, on the Petition of William Prickett for an Allowance Out of the Defendant’s Estate. AND Cross-Appeal of Arthur G. Logan and William D. Denney, Receivers of International Re-Insurance Corporation, From a Part of the Order of the Chancellor of the State of Delaware Dated January 27, 1953, on the Petition of William Prickett for an Allowance Out of the Receivership Estate

1953-03-27 · Supreme Court of Delaware · United States

3What it rests on

6Relied 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.

19661 judgments14 years silent19801 judgments19821 judgments4 years silent19861 judgments19891 judgments7 years silent19961 judgments

6 judgments have relied on it, across 1966–1996

first 1966 · last 1996 · busiest 1966 (1 judgments)

1996-08-26Edward O. GOODRICH, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. E.F. HUTTON GROUP, INC., and E.F. Hutton Group & Company, Inc., Defendants Below, AppelleesSupreme Court of Delaware 1989-07-03TANDYCRAFTS, INC., R.E. Cox, III, Roger A. Dickinson, Kenneth L. Gregson, William H. Michero, Joe K. Pace, Robert Schutts, and John A. Wilson, Defendants Below, Appellants, v. INITIO PARTNERS, Plaintiff Below, AppelleeSupreme Court of Delaware 1986-07-11William B. WEINBERGER and Edward U. Notz, Plaintiffs, v. UOP, INC., the Signal Companies, Inc., and Sigco Incorporated, DefendantsCourt of Chancery of Delaware 1982-09-15CM & M GROUP, INC., Defendant Below, Appellant, Cross-Appellee, v. Thomas J. CARROLL, Plaintiff Below, Appellee, Cross-AppellantSupreme Court of Delaware 1980-05-29SUGARLAND INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant, Appellant, and United States National Bank of Galveston, Trustee, Intervenor, Appellant, v. Lyda Ann Q. THOMAS Et Al., Plaintiffs, AppelleesSupreme Court of Delaware 1966-10-17Chrysler Corporation, Defendant Below, Appellant, Cross-Appellee, vs. Sol A. Dann Et Al., and Mary L. Gallo Et Al., Plaintiffs and Petitioners Below, Appellees, Cross-AppellantsSupreme Court of Delaware

What it rests on

1939-04-24SPRAGUE v. TICONIC NATIONAL BANK Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States 1885-01-05CENTRAL RAILROAD & BANKING COMPANY OF GEORGIA v. PETTUS & OthersSupreme Court of the United States 1882-05-18Trustees v. GreenoughSupreme Court of the United States

7 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.