Helen E. Cottrell, Plaintiff Below, Appellant, vs. the Pawcatuck Company (Formerly the C. B. Cottrell & Sons Company), a Delaware Corporation (Known as the Old Company), Harris-Seybold Company, a Delaware Corporation, Donald C. Cottrell, Ridley Watts, Arthur M. Cottrell, Jr., Charles P. Cottrell, Jr., and the Cottrell Company, a Delaware Corporation (Known as the New Company), Defendants Below, Appellees

1956-12-21 · Supreme Court of Delaware · United States

read the judgment

2What 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.

19601 judgments5 years silent19651 judgments9 years silent19741 judgments10 years silent19841 judgments

4 judgments have relied on it, across 1960–1984

first 1960 · last 1984 · busiest 1960 (1 judgments)

1984-03-01Senior ARONSON, Et Al., Defendants Below, Appellants, v. Harry LEWIS, Plaintiff Below, AppelleeSupreme Court of Delaware 1974-01-10Louis S. GIMBEL, III, Plaintiff, v. the SIGNAL COMPANIES, INC., Et Al., DefendantsCourt of Chancery of Delaware 1965-08-02Application of Delaware Racing AssociationSupreme Court of Delaware 1960-01-25Adams v. RC Williams & CompanyCourt of Chancery of Delaware

What it rests on

1956-07-05Harold K. Baron, Appellant, vs. Pressed Metals of America, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, and Frederick W. Richmond, AppelleesSupreme Court of Delaware 1955-09-28Cottrell v. Pawcatuck CompanyCourt 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.