INTERNATIONAL TELECHARGE, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Respondent Below, Appellant, v. BOMARKO, INC., a Delaware Corporation, James D. Azzar, Michael Bruce Azzar, Extrusions Division, Inc., and Painewebber, Inc., Petitioners Below, Appellees; Ronald J. Hann, Long Distance Communications, Inc. and Oncor Communications, Inc., Defendants-Below, Appellants, v. Bomarko, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, James D. Azzar, Michael Bruce Azzar, Extrusions Division, Inc., and Painewebber, Inc., Plaintiffs-Below, Appellees, Cross-Appellants

2000-12-01 · Supreme Court of Delaware · United States

read the judgment

3What 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.

20021 judgments13 years silent20151 judgments

2 judgments have relied on it, across 2002–2015

first 2002 · last 2015 · busiest 2002 (1 judgments)

2015-11-30RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, Defendant Below, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Joanna JERVIS, Plaintiff Below, Appellee/Cross-AppellantSupreme Court of Delaware 2002-10-11GOTHAM PARTNERS, L.P., Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. HALLWOOD REALTY PARTNERS, L.P., Hallwood Realty Corporation, the Hallwood Group Incorporated, Anthony J. Gumbiner and William L. Guzzetti, Defendants Below, Appellees/Cross-AppellantsSupreme Court of Delaware

What it rests on

1996-04-10Merle THORPE, Jr., by the Executor of His Estate, Peter M. CASTLEMAN, and Foundation for Middle East Peace, a District of Columbia Corporation, Plaintiffs Below, Appellants, v. CERBCO, INC., Robert W. Erikson and George Wm. Erikson, Defendants Below, AppelleesSupreme Court of Delaware 1983-02-01William B. WEINBERGER, Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. UOP, INC., Et Al., Defendants Below, AppelleesSupreme Court of Delaware 1972-01-04Theodore LEVITT Et Al., Plaintiffs Below, Appellees and Cross-Appellants, v. John A. BOUVIER, Jr., Defendant Below, Appellant and Cross-Appellee, and American Mushroom Corp., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant Below, AppelleeSupreme Court 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.