Legal Opinion
Stegemeier v. Magness
Supreme Court of Delaware
Decided April 30, 1999No. 143, 1998PublishedCited by 27 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HARTNETT, Justice, for the majority.
We find that the Court of Chancery erred when it found, after trial, that Anne Magness, one of the two co-administrators of the will of A. Gray Magness, and Donald Magness, the trustee of the residuary trust created by the will, did not breach their fiduciary duty when they conveyed the real estate that was to be part of the corpus of the residuary trust to a corporation owned by them. We further find that the breaches of fiduciary duty were not cured because the other co-administrator, who was disinterested in the sale, joined in the deeds. We also find…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Levitt v. BouvierSupreme Court of Delaware · 1972
- Sinclair Oil Corporation v. LevienSupreme Court of Delaware · 1971
- Cinerama, Inc. v. Technicolor, Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1995
- Nixon v. BlackwellSupreme Court of Delaware · 1993
- Oberly v. KirbySupreme Court of Delaware · 1991
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- Schock v. NashSupreme Court of Delaware · 1999
- Hudak v. ProcekSupreme Court of Delaware · 2002
- Genger v. TR INVESTORS, LLCSupreme Court of Delaware · 2011
- King v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 2011
- Amirsaleh v. Board of Trade of the City of New York, Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 2011
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.