Saxe v. Brady

1962-09-10 · Court of Chancery of Delaware · United States

5What it rests on

8Relied 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.

+2 earlier19771 judgments19781 judgments19791 judgments5 years silent19841 judgments4 years silent19881 judgments4 years silent19921 judgments

8 judgments have relied on it, across 1964–1992

first 1964 · last 1992 · busiest 1964 (1 judgments)

1992-04-09W.B. Dixon STROUD, Jr., Morris W. Stroud, Agnes S. Peele, and Anne S. Bradford, Plaintiffs Below, Appellants, v. J. Peter GRACE, Dr. George C. Dacey, Dr. T.J. Malone, Roger Milliken, H.W. Jockers, Dr. H. Keith Brodie, Minot K. Milliken, F.G. Rogers, Rene C. McPherson, Gerrish H. Milliken, and Milliken & Company, a Delaware Corporation, Defendants Below, AppelleesSupreme Court of Delaware 1988-03-15David GROBOW, Shelly Kostrinsky, Joyce L. Thomas, Drexel Home, Inc., Adelle Brody, Jerrold Schaffer, Phyllis Greenfogel, Martin Besen, Joseph Lieberman, Blanche Silverberg, Irving Kas, Beatrice L. Russ and Bronson Murray, Plaintiffs Below, Appellants, v. H. Ross PEROT, Roger B. Smith, F. James McDonald, Howard H. Kehrl, F. Alan Smith, Donald J. Atwood, Lloyd E. Reuss, Robert C. Stempel, Thomas A. Murphy, Anne L. Armstrong, Catherine B. Cleary, James H. Evans, Walter A. Fallon, Charles T. Fisher III, Marvin L. Goldberger, John J. Horan, Edmund T. Pratt, Jr., James D. Robinson III, John G. Smale, Leon H. Sullivan, Dennis Weatherstone, Thomas H. Wyman, Morton H. Meyerson, J. Thomas Walter, Jr., and William K. Gayden, Defendants Below, Appellees, and General Motors Corporation and Electronic Data Systems Corporation, Nominal Defendants Below, AppelleesSupreme Court of Delaware 1984-06-21Bernard POGOSTIN, Ann Brown and Irwin J. Newman, Plaintiffs Below, Appellants, v. W. Thomas RICE, Eliot H. Stein, Fred Sullivan, A. Lightfoot Walker, Arthur C. Babson, Francis L. Cappaert, Edwin I. Hatch, Peter C. Huang, George T. Scharfenberger, Joe E. Lonning, Daniel E. Lyons, Stephen E. O’Neil, Eben W. Pyne, John H. Washburn and City Investing Company, Defendants Below, AppelleesSupreme Court of Delaware 1979-10-02A. Elihu MICHELSON, Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. Louis C. DUNCAN, G. R. Ellis, Thomas D. Flynn, Joseph W. James, Mitchell P. Kartalia, Paul C. Nagel, Jr., Gordon P. Osler, Arthur E. Rasmussen, George W. Rauch, A. O. Steffey, James W. Tait, Robert C. Trow, Miller Upton, William E. Wehner, John C. Whitehead, D. C. Clark, John T. Gurash and Household Finance Corporation, Defendants Below, AppelleesSupreme Court of Delaware 1978-02-15A. Elihu MICHELSON, Plaintiff, v. Louis C. DUNCAN Et Al., DefendantsCourt of Chancery of Delaware 1977-10-20Charles KAPLAN, Plaintiff, v. Robert S. GOLDSAMT, Bernard J. Korman, Alan B. Miller, Leonard W. Cronkhite, Jr., Thomas L. Kempner, Leonard M. Leiman, Louis Rones, J. Irving Schwartz, Joseph Ziegler and American Medicorp, Inc., DefendantsCourt of Chancery of Delaware 1976-06-28Irving FLIEGLER, Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. John C. LAWRENCE Et Al., Defendants Below, AppelleesSupreme Court of Delaware 1964-01-14Rome v. ArcherSupreme Court of Delaware

What it rests on

1960-02-11Beard v. ElsterSupreme Court of Delaware 1959-10-28Lieberman v. BeckerSupreme Court of Delaware 1954-03-26Schiff v. RKO Pictures Corp.Court of Chancery of Delaware 1952-10-21Kaufman v. ShoenbergCourt of Chancery of Delaware 1952-08-29Tessie Gottlieb, Plaintiff Below, Appellant, vs. Heyden Chemical Corporation, a Corporation of the State of Delaware, Defendant Below, AppelleeSupreme Court of Delaware

2 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.