Contract

the citation graph

Tessie Gottlieb, Plaintiff Below, Appellant, vs. Heyden Chemical Corporation, a Corporation of the State of Delaware, Defendant Below, Appellee

1952-08-29 · Supreme Court of Delaware · United States

read the judgment

1What it rests on

17Relied 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.

+10 earlier19831 judgments19852 judgments4 years silent19891 judgments19921 judgments19951 judgments31 years silent20261 judgments

17 judgments have relied on it, across 1952–2026

first 1952 · last 2026 · busiest 1985 (2 judgments)

2026-07-23Samvit Ramadurgam v. Destiny XYZ Inc.Court of Chancery of Delaware 1995-11-22In Re SANTA FE PACIFIC CORPORATION SHAREHOLDER LITIGATIONSupreme Court of Delaware 1992-04-09W.B. Dixon STROUD, Jr., Morris W. Stroud, Agnes S. Peele, and Anne S. Bradford, Plaintiffs Below, Appellants, v. J. Peter GRACE, Dr. George C. Dacey, Dr. T.J. Malone, Roger Milliken, H.W. Jockers, Dr. H. Keith Brodie, Minot K. Milliken, F.G. Rogers, Rene C. McPherson, Gerrish H. Milliken, and Milliken & Company, a Delaware Corporation, Defendants Below, AppelleesSupreme Court of Delaware 1989-05-03MILLS ACQUISITION CO., a Delaware Corporation, Et Al., Plaintiffs Below, Appellants, v. MACMILLAN, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Et Al., Defendants Below, AppelleesSupreme Court of Delaware 1985-09-23Frieda H. RABKIN, Harry Lewis, Eric Emory, Alan Emory, Nancy Emory, Howard Greenwald, Werner Klugman and Samuel Kaufman, Plaintiffs Below, Appellants, v. PHILIP A. HUNT CHEMICAL CORPORATION, Olin Corporation, Alfred T. Blomquist, Robert T. Zetena, John M. Henske, John R. Bonniwell, Charles J. Lause, Stephen R. Petschek and George J. Haufler, Defendants Below, AppelleesSupreme Court of Delaware 1985-03-14Alden SMITH and John W. Gosselin, Plaintiffs Below, Appellants, v. Jerome W. VAN GORKOM, Bruce S. Chelberg, William B. Johnson, Joseph B. Lanterman, Graham J. Morgan, Thomas P. O’Boyle, W. Allen Wallis, Sidney H. Bonser, William D. Browder, Trans Union Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Marmon Group, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, GL Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, and New T. Co., a Delaware Corporation, 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 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 1978-02-15A. Elihu MICHELSON, Plaintiff, v. Louis C. DUNCAN Et Al., DefendantsCourt of Chancery of Delaware 1976-06-28Irving FLIEGLER, Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. John C. LAWRENCE Et Al., Defendants Below, AppelleesSupreme Court 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 1964-11-17Hoffman v. DannSupreme Court of Delaware 1962-09-10Saxe v. BradyCourt of Chancery of Delaware 1960-02-11Beard v. ElsterSupreme Court of Delaware 1959-10-28Lieberman v. BeckerSupreme Court of Delaware 1954-03-26Schiff v. RKO Pictures Corp.Court of Chancery of Delaware 1952-07-17Tessie Gottlieb, Plaintiff—below, Appellant, vs. Heyden Chemical Corporation, a Corporation of the State of Delaware, Defendant—below, AppelleeSupreme Court of Delaware

What it rests on

1933-05-29ROGERS v. HILL Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States

1 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.