William B. WEINBERGER, Plaintiff, v. UOP, INC., Et Al., Defendants

1979-11-28 · Court of Chancery of Delaware · United States

read the judgment

6What 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.

19811 judgments19831 judgments19861 judgments19881 judgments

4 judgments have relied on it, across 1981–1988

first 1981 · last 1988 · busiest 1981 (1 judgments)

1988-03-15David GROBOW, Shelly Kostrinsky, Joyce L. Thomas, Drexel Home, Inc., Adelle Brody, Jerrold Schaffer, Phyllis Greenfogel, Martin Besen, Joseph Lieberman, Blanche Silverberg, Irving Kas, Beatrice L. Russ and Bronson Murray, Plaintiffs Below, Appellants, v. H. Ross PEROT, Roger B. Smith, F. James McDonald, Howard H. Kehrl, F. Alan Smith, Donald J. Atwood, Lloyd E. Reuss, Robert C. Stempel, Thomas A. Murphy, Anne L. Armstrong, Catherine B. Cleary, James H. Evans, Walter A. Fallon, Charles T. Fisher III, Marvin L. Goldberger, John J. Horan, Edmund T. Pratt, Jr., James D. Robinson III, John G. Smale, Leon H. Sullivan, Dennis Weatherstone, Thomas H. Wyman, Morton H. Meyerson, J. Thomas Walter, Jr., and William K. Gayden, Defendants Below, Appellees, and General Motors Corporation and Electronic Data Systems Corporation, Nominal Defendants Below, AppelleesSupreme 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 1983-02-01William B. WEINBERGER, Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. UOP, INC., Et Al., Defendants Below, AppelleesSupreme Court of Delaware 1981-02-09William B. WEINBERGER, Plaintiff, v. UOP, INC. Et Al., DefendantsCourt of Chancery of Delaware

What it rests on

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 1979-08-06ROLAND INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Landro Corporation, and Hyatt Corporation, Defendants, Appellants, v. Thomas C. NAJJAR, Jr., Plaintiff, AppelleeSupreme Court of Delaware 1977-10-18Michael D. TANZER and Deborah Tanzer, as Trustees of Tanzer Economic Associates, Inc. Profit Sharing Plan, Plaintiffs Below, Appellants, v. INTERNATIONAL GENERAL INDUSTRIES, INC., Et Al., Defendants Below, AppelleesSupreme Court of Delaware 1977-09-23Louis S. SINGER and Mollie Singer, Plaintiffs Below, Appellants, v. the MAGNAVOX COMPANY Et Al., Defendants Below, AppelleesSupreme Court of Delaware 1954-05-11John Kenneth Danby, vs. the Osteopathic Hospital Association of Delaware, a Corporation of the State of DelawareSupreme Court of Delaware 1953-11-18Danby v. Osteopathic Hospital Ass'n of DelawareCourt 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.