Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 91,674 Kevin D. Flynn, John H. Jacobs, and John J. Deluca. On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Bass Brothers Enterprises, Inc. National Alfalfa Dehydrating and Milling Company, Anne H. Bass, Anne T. Bass, Edward P. Bass, Nancy Lee Bass, Perry R. Bass, Robert M. Bass, Sid R. Bass, W. Fred Massey, Charles R. Peterson, and Richard E. Rainwater

1984-10-09 · Third Circuit · United States

read the judgment

3What it rests on

3Relied 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.

19861 judgments19891 judgments7 years silent19961 judgments

3 judgments have relied on it, across 1986–1996

first 1986 · last 1996 · busiest 1986 (1 judgments)

1996-08-23Marilyn ZIRN, Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. VLI CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, Robert A. Elliott, Charlotte O’Hara Vorhauer, Personal Representative of the Estate of Bruce Vorhauer, Lawrance A. Brown, Jr., Barbara Best North, and American Home Products, a Delaware Corporation, Defendants Below, AppelleesSupreme Court of Delaware 1989-12-22Edith CITRON, Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. FAIRCHILD CAMERA AND INSTRUMENT CORPORATION, Wilfred J. Corrigan, William C. Franklin, William A. Stenson, Walter Burke, Alvin C. Rice, C. Lester Hogan, Albert Bowers, Walter J.P. Curley, Schlumberger (California) Inc., Schlumberger Technology Corporation and Schlumberger Limited, Defendants Below, AppellantsSupreme Court of Delaware 1986-10-22William B. WEINBERGER, Plaintiff, v. RIO GRANDE INDUSTRIES, INC., Harry Blundell, W.K. Coors, W.J. Holtman, Gerald H. Phipps, G.B. Aydelott, John Evans, Jr., Roy W. Simmons, William Thayer Tutt, David P. Gardner, Charles H. Leavell, D.E. Provost, Mayfield R. Shilling, the Anschutz Corp. and TAC Acquisition Corp., DefendantsCourt of Chancery of Delaware

What it rests on

1976-06-14TSC INDUSTRIES, INC., Et Al. v. NORTHWAY, INC.Supreme Court of the United States 1975-06-17Rondeau v. Mosinee Paper Corp.Supreme Court of the United States 1970-01-26MILLS Et Al. v. ELECTRIC AUTO-LITE CO. Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States

5 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.