MOOTED RULING GETS NO REVIEW OR PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT, SAYS HIGH COURT Glazer v. Pasternak | Secondary Sources | Westlaw

MOOTED RULING GETS NO REVIEW OR PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT, SAYS HIGH COURT Glazer v. Pasternak | Secondary Sources | Westlaw

View on Westlaw or start a FREE TRIAL today, MOOTED RULING GETS NO REVIEW OR PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT, SAYS HIGH COURT Glazer v. Pasternak, Secondary Sources
Skip Page Header

MOOTED RULING GETS NO REVIEW OR PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT, SAYS HIGH COURT Glazer v. Pasternak

1997 ANCODLLR 21340Andrews Corporate Officers and Directors Liability Litigation Reporter (Approx. 3 pages)

MOOTED RULING GETS NO REVIEW OR PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT, SAYS HIGH COURT Glazer v. Pasternak

1997 ANCODLLR 21340Andrews Corporate Officers and Directors Liability Litigation Reporter (Approx. 3 pages)

1997 Andrews Corp. Off. & Directors Liab. Litig. Rep. 21340
Andrews Corporate Officers and Directors Liability Litigation Reporter
June 11, 1997
Supermajority Vote/Mootness
Copyright (c) 1997 Andrews Publications

MOOTED RULING GETS NO REVIEW OR PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT, SAYS HIGH COURT

Glazer v. Pasternak

The Delaware Supreme Court decided that it need not review an injunction of a proposed merger that has since been abandoned, especially because the lower court ruling is being vacated and will have no precedential effect on the interpretation of...
End of Document© 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.