Thomas T.S. KAUNG, Plaintiff-Below, Appellant, v. COLE NATIONAL CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation Defendant-Below, Appellee

2005-07-05 · Supreme Court of Delaware · United States

read the judgment

10What it rests on

2Relied 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.

20151 judgments11 years silent20261 judgments

2 judgments have relied on it, across 2015–2026

first 2015 · last 2026 · busiest 2015 (1 judgments)

2026-08-21Young Min Ban v. Joseph P. ManheimSupreme Court of Delaware 2015-11-30RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, Defendant Below, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Joanna JERVIS, Plaintiff Below, Appellee/Cross-AppellantSupreme Court of Delaware

What it rests on

1998-11-19H. Frederick JOHNSTON, Sandra Spillane and Technicorp International II, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendants Below, Appellants, v. ARBITRIUM (CAYMAN ISLANDS) HANDELS AG and Miklos Vendel, Plaintiffs Below, AppelleesSupreme Court of Delaware 1998-01-22Charles BRICE, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, AppelleeSupreme Court of Delaware 1996-08-26Edward O. GOODRICH, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. E.F. HUTTON GROUP, INC., and E.F. Hutton Group & Company, Inc., Defendants Below, AppelleesSupreme Court of Delaware 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 1993-12-23Steven M. RALES, Mitchell P. Rales, and John Doe 1-10, Defendants Below, Appellants, and Easco Hand Tools, Inc. and Danaher Corporation, Nominal Defendants Below, Appellants, v. Alfred BLASBAND, Derivatively and on Behalf of Easco Hand Tools, Inc. and Danaher Corporation, Plaintiff Below, AppelleeSupreme Court of Delaware 1992-02-18CITADEL HOLDING CORPORATION, a Corporation of the State of Delaware, Defendant Below, Appellant/Cross Appellee, v. Alfred ROVEN, Plaintiff Below, Appellee/Cross AppellantSupreme Court of Delaware 1980-06-23ROADWAY EXPRESS, INC. v. PIPER Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States 1975-05-12Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States 1968-05-10Peggy M. CHAVIN, I. Favel Chavin, and James P. Quinn, Plaintiffs Below, Appellants, v. Beatrice A. COPE, Defendant Below, AppelleeSupreme Court of Delaware 1962-06-25Link v. Wabash Railroad Co.Supreme Court of the United States

11 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.