Harry 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, Defendants

1969-07-31 · Court of Chancery of Delaware · United States

read the judgment

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.

19702 judgments19712 judgments6 years silent19771 judgments6 years silent19831 judgments19852 judgments

8 judgments have relied on it, across 1970–1985

first 1970 · last 1985 · busiest 1970 (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 1971-06-18SINCLAIR OIL CORPORATION, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. Francis S. LEVIEN, Plaintiff Below, AppelleeSupreme Court of Delaware 1971-06-15DAVID J. GREENE & CO. Et Al., Plaintiffs, v. SCHENLEY INDUSTRIES, INC., Et Al., DefendantsCourt of Chancery of Delaware 1970-06-01GETTY OIL COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. SKELLY OIL COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant Below, Appellee; SKELLY OIL COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant Below, Appellee and Cross-Appellant, v. GETTY OIL COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, Plaintiff Below, Appellant and Cross-AppelleeSupreme Court of Delaware 1970-04-16Harry BASTIAN Et Al., Appellants, v. BOURNS, INC., a Corporation of the State of California Et Al., AppelleesSupreme Court of Delaware

What it rests on

1968-12-24DAVID J. GREENE AND CO. Et Al., Plaintiffs, v. DUNHILL INTERNATIONAL, INC., and A. G. Spalding & Bros., Inc., DefendantsCourt of Chancery of Delaware 1967-01-23Charles E. Brundage, Individually and as Trustee for the Charles E. and Edna T. Brundage Charitable Scientific and Wild Life Conservation Foundation, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Eileen H. Carr, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellant, v. the New Jersey Zinc Company, a New Jersey Corporation, Et Al., Defendants-RespondentsSupreme Court of New Jersey 1952-11-18Robert D. Sterling, Ruth L. Sterling, Edward Sterling, Oliver Sterling, Elizabeth Parks Sterling, Realty Investing Company, Cathedral Estates, Inc., Charles Kimmelman, Milton A. Kimmelman, Allenhurst Realties, Inc., Rhinelander Improvement Co., Inc., Helen Kimmelman, Ida Kimmelman, Alma S. Porter and Ruth S. Frost, Plaintiffs Below, Appellants, vs. Mayflower Hotel Corporation and Hilton Hotels Corporation, Each a Corporation of the State of Delaware, Defendants Below, AppelleesSupreme Court 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 1952-06-17Sterling v. Mayflower Hotel Corp.Court of Chancery 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.