Kaufman v. Shoenberg

1952-10-21 · Court of Chancery of Delaware · United States

0What 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.

19541 judgments5 years silent19591 judgments19621 judgments15 years silent19771 judgments19781 judgments19791 judgments

6 judgments have relied on it, across 1954–1979

first 1954 · last 1979 · busiest 1954 (1 judgments)

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 1962-09-10Saxe v. BradyCourt of Chancery of Delaware 1959-10-28Lieberman v. BeckerSupreme Court of Delaware 1954-03-26Schiff v. RKO Pictures Corp.Court of Chancery of Delaware

What it rests on

No citation has been read out of this judgment.

The European Court does not publish its citations as data. They are read out of the text of the judgment itself. Until that reading reaches this judgment, it has no outgoing edge.

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.