Stauffer v. Standard Brands Incorporated

1962-12-14 · Supreme Court of Delaware · United States

0What it rests on

9Relied 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.

+2 earlier19711 judgments6 years silent19772 judgments19791 judgments4 years silent19831 judgments19851 judgments19871 judgments

9 judgments have relied on it, across 1965–1987

first 1965 · last 1987 · busiest 1977 (2 judgments)

1987-12-30John BERSHAD, Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. CURTISS-WRIGHT CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, and Dorr-Oliver Inc., a Delaware CorporationSupreme 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 1983-02-01William B. WEINBERGER, Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. UOP, INC., Et Al., 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 1977-09-23Louis S. SINGER and Mollie Singer, Plaintiffs Below, Appellants, v. the MAGNAVOX COMPANY Et Al., Defendants Below, AppelleesSupreme Court of Delaware 1977-03-23SANTA FE INDUSTRIES, INC., Et Al. v. GREEN Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States 1971-06-15DAVID J. GREENE & CO. Et Al., Plaintiffs, v. SCHENLEY INDUSTRIES, INC., Et Al., DefendantsCourt of Chancery of Delaware 1968-09-27In Re OLIVETTI UNDERWOOD CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, an Appraisal ProceedingCourt of Chancery of Delaware 1965-08-02Application of Delaware Racing AssociationSupreme Court of Delaware

What it rests on

3 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.