Nicholas L. GIURICICH and Bodo Kalen, Individually, Plaintiffs Below, Appellants, v. EMTROL CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, Robert G. Fournie, Earle J. Kennedy, Jr., Kenneth B. Hardy, Jr., Robert G. Fournie, Jr., and Earle J. Kennedy, III, Defendants Below, Appellees

1982-07-30 · Supreme Court of Delaware · United States

read the judgment

3What it rests on

4Relied 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.

19852 judgments19881 judgments6 years silent19941 judgments

4 judgments have relied on it, across 1985–1994

first 1985 · last 1994 · busiest 1985 (2 judgments)

1994-02-04PARAMOUNT COMMUNICATIONS INC., Viacom Inc., Martin S. Davis, Grace J. Fippinger, Irving R. Fischer, Benjamin L. Hooks, Franz J. Lutolf, James A. Pattison, Irwin Schloss, Samuel J. Silber-Man, Lawrence M. Small, and George Weissman, Defendants Below, Appellants, v. QVC NETWORK INC., Plaintiff Below, Appellee. in Re PARAMOUNT COMMUNICATIONS INC. SHAREHOLDERS’ LITIGATIONSupreme Court of Delaware 1988-07-25BLASIUS INDUSTRIES, INC., William B. Conner, Warren Delano, Jr., Harold H. George, Harold E. Hall, Michael A. Lubin, Arnold W. MacAlonan, Thomas J. Murnick, and William P. Shulevitz, Plaintiffs, v. ATLAS CORPORATION, John J. Dwyer, Edward R. Farley, Jr., Michael Bongiovanni, Richard R. Weaver, Walter G. Clinchy, Andrew Davlin, Jr., Edgar M. Masinter, John M. Devaney and Harry J. Winters, Jr., DefendantsCourt of Chancery of Delaware 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 1985-01-29John A. MORAN and the Dyson-Kissner-Moran Corporation, Plaintiffs, and Gretl Golter, Individually and in a Derivative Capacity, Plaintiff Intervenor, v. HOUSEHOLD INTERNATIONAL, INC. a Delaware Corporation, Donald C. Clark, Thomas D. Flynn, Mary Johnston Evans, William D. Hendry, Joseph W. James, Mitchell P. Kartalia, Gordon P. Osler, Arthur E. Rasmussen, George W. Rauch, James M. Tait, Miller Upton, Bernard F. Brennan and Gary G. Dillon, Defendants; HOUSEHOLD INTERNATIONAL, INC., Counterclaim Plaintiff, v. John A. MORAN, Charles H. Dyson and the Dyson-Kissner-Moran Corporation, Counterclaim DefendantsCourt of Chancery of Delaware

What it rests on

1977-09-08PROVIDENCE AND WORCESTER COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. George P. BAKER, Richard C. Bond, Jervis Langdon, Jr. and Willard Wirtz, Trustees of the Property of Penn Central Transportation Company, Debtor, Plaintiffs Below, AppelleesSupreme Court of Delaware 1971-11-29Andrew H. SCHNELL, Jr. and Jack Safer, Plaintiffs Below, Appellants, v. CHRIS-CRAFT INDUSTRIES, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant Below, AppelleeSupreme Court of Delaware 1954-12-08Pitts v. WhiteSupreme Court of Delaware

15 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.