Legal Opinion

DiGiacobbe v. Sestak

Supreme Court of Delaware

Decided December 17, 1999No. 450,1998PublishedCited by 107 opinions

1Per curiam

In this appeal, we consider the role of a master in the Court of. Chancery and the scope of review of a master’s final report. We hold that the judges in the Court of Chancery have both inherent and statutory power to refer any matter within the court’s jurisdiction to a master. They may delegate to a master full authority to address all issues in controversy from the outset of the case through post-trial submissions. The master is not a judge, however, so the master’s rulings and report are not final until they have been reviewed and adopted by a judge. Timely objections to the master’s…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Levitt v. BouvierSupreme Court of Delaware · 1972
  2. Glanding v. Industrial Trust Co.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1945
  3. Redden v. McGillSupreme Court of Delaware · 1988
  4. State v. WilsonSupreme Court of Delaware · 1988
  5. Sostre v. SwiftSupreme Court of Delaware · 1992

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

3Cited by107 opinions

  1. Homestore, Inc. v. TafeenSupreme Court of Delaware · 2005
  2. Cede & Co. v. Technicolor, Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 2000
  3. Aveta, Inc. v. ColonCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 2008
  4. B.E. Capital Management Fund LP v. Fund.com Inc.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 2017
  5. In re Activision Blizzard, Inc.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 2014

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

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

Powered by the Exa API