Legal Opinion

Sutherland v. Sutherland

Court of Chancery of Delaware

Decided May 29, 2008No. C.A. 2399-VCLPublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

LAMB, Vice Chancellor.

The nominal defendants, Dardanelle Timber Co., Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiary, Sutherland Lumber Southwest, Inc., move pursuant to Court of Chancery Rule 59(f) to reargue this court’s May 5, 2008 denial of their motion to dismiss this derivative action based on the conclusions of a one-person special litigation committee (“SLC”). The companies argue that the court both misapplied the law and misapprehended material facts in reaching its decision. For the reasons stated below, the motion for reargument will be denied.

I

The standard applicable to a motion for…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Zapata Corp. v. MaldonadoSupreme Court of Delaware · 1981
  2. In Re ORACLE CORP DERIVATIVE LITIGATIONCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 2003
  3. Kaplan v. WyattCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1984
  4. Lewis v. FuquaCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1985
  5. Miles, Inc. v. Cookson America, Inc.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1995

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Day v. StascavageColorado Court of Appeals · 2010
  2. In re Baker Hughes, a GE Company, Derivative LitigationCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 2023
  3. Patrick Orlando v. Digital World Acquisition Corp.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 2025
  4. Zutrau v. Jansing and ICE Systems, Inc. (re: Plaintiff's Motion to Amend)Court of Chancery of Delaware · 2014

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API