Fidanque v. American Maracaibo Co.

1952-11-05 · Court of Chancery of Delaware · United States

2What it rests on

7Relied 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.

+1 earlier19711 judgments7 years silent19781 judgments19791 judgments5 years silent19841 judgments19851 judgments7 years silent19921 judgments

7 judgments have relied on it, across 1963–1992

first 1963 · last 1992 · busiest 1963 (1 judgments)

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 1985-05-09Emanuel G. ROSENBLATT, Joseph Gruss, Carolyn Skelly Burford, Et Al., Plaintiffs Below, Appellants, v. GETTY OIL COMPANY, Defendant Below, AppelleeSupreme Court of Delaware 1984-03-01Senior ARONSON, Et Al., Defendants Below, Appellants, v. Harry LEWIS, Plaintiff Below, AppelleeSupreme 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 1971-10-20John PUMA, Plaintiff, v. J. Willard MARRIOTT Et Al., DefendantsCourt of Chancery of Delaware 1963-11-05Orzeck v. EnglehartSupreme Court of Delaware

What it rests on

1952-06-17Sterling v. Mayflower Hotel Corp.Court of Chancery of Delaware 1933-05-29ROGERS v. HILL Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States

9 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.