Gottlieb v. Heyden Chemical Corp.
Supreme Court of Delaware
1Opinion of the Court
Tunnell, Justice,
delivering the opinion of the court:
Since only one important argument is raised in these petitions which was not carefully considered prior to the filing of our opinion, an order permitting limited re-argument might have been entered without comment if it did not appear that the opinion itself may have created some confusion, (see ante p. 82.) The petitions and their supporting briefs. reveal that both parties have taken the opinion to decide matters which we had no intention of deciding and, what is worse, to decide them according to views we do not entertain. Moreover,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Rogers v. HillSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
- Rosenthal v. Burry Biscuit Corp.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1948
- Holthusen v. Edward G. Budd Mfg. Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1943
3Cited by88 opinions
- Weinberger v. UOP, Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1983
- Smith v. Van GorkomSupreme Court of Delaware · 1985
- In Re Santa Fe Pacific Corp. Shareholder LitigationSupreme Court of Delaware · 1995
- Stroud v. GraceSupreme Court of Delaware · 1992
- Mills Acquisition Co. v. MacMillan, Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1989
83 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.