Sterling v. Mayflower Hotel Corp.

1952-06-17 · Court of Chancery of Delaware · United States

read the judgment

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.

19522 judgments16 years silent19681 judgments19691 judgments19711 judgments10 years silent19811 judgments

6 judgments have relied on it, across 1952–1981

first 1952 · last 1981 · busiest 1952 (2 judgments)

1981-02-09William B. WEINBERGER, Plaintiff, v. UOP, INC. Et Al., DefendantsCourt of Chancery of Delaware 1971-06-15DAVID J. GREENE & CO. Et Al., Plaintiffs, v. SCHENLEY INDUSTRIES, INC., Et Al., DefendantsCourt of Chancery of Delaware 1969-07-31Harry 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, DefendantsCourt of Chancery of Delaware 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 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 1952-11-05Fidanque v. American Maracaibo Co.Court of Chancery of Delaware

What it rests on

6 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.