The court reversed the summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings.

The court modified the lower court's order to reinstate the former employee's cause of action for age discrimination. The dismissal of all other causes of action was upheld.

The court reversed the judgment on the strict liability, misrepresentation, and negligence claims of the purchaser's complaint and affirmed the trial court's dismissal because the purchaser could not recover for economic loss under his theories. As to the breach of warranty claim, the trial court's denial of the manufacturer's motion to dismiss was reversed.

The court affirmed the judgment as modified on the grounds that plaintiff was entitled to proceeds resulting from defendant's purchase of a leasehold estate where defendant's lucrative position arose from the creation of a joint venture.

The decision of the district court was affirmed.

The judgment of the lower court was affirmed.

The court reversed the grant of summary judgment and the dismissal of the counterclaims and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

The supreme court reversed the appellate court's judgment with respect to its holding that the losing bidder stated a cause of action under the UCL and affirmed the appellate court's judgment with respect to its determination that the losing bidder stated a cause of action for the tort of interference with prospective economic advantage. The case was remanded to the appellate court for further proceedings.

The judgment of willful infringement and the attorney fee award were vacated, and the case was remanded for redetermination.

The court vacated the district court's summary judgment of noninfringement and remanded for further proceedings. The court affirmed the denial of plaintiff's motion to amend.

The court modified and remanded a judgment of the trial court, which granted adverse judgment against appellant, father of an incompetent, in action to be appointed guardian of person and property of his daughter. The court held that appellant's religious freedoms weighed against the state's interest in preservation of life did not present a constitutional issue and that daughter's right of privacy could be...

A motion pursuant to Del. Ch. Ct. R. 23.1 requires the court to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the claims asserted in light of the discovery record and to evaluate the fairness and adequacy of the consideration offered to the corporation in exchange for the release of all claims made or arising from the facts alleged. The ultimate issue then is whether the proposed settlement appears to be fair to the corporation...

The appellate court affirmed the decision of the district court.

The court affirmed the decision of the district court.

The order of the appellate court, insofar as it pertained to the individual defendants, was affirmed.

Judgment reversed; plaintiff's contract action was improperly reinstated, as there was no evidence that his at-will status was altered by an implied contract. Plaintiff's implied covenant cause of action claim was properly dismissed. Plaintiff failed to show that defendant's proffered reasons for its actions were a pretext for prohibited age discrimination. Plaintiff's claim that defendant breached its...

The court affirmed the judgment against the manufacturer and the judgment in favor the retailer.

The court vacated the Board's dismissal and remanded the case to the Board for further consideration of the issue of non-frivolousness of the claim.

The court affirmed that plaintiff's tort cause of action for wrongful discharge failed and that tort remedies were not available for breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The court reversed the dismissal of plaintiff 's claim for breach of an implied-in-fact contract promise to discharge only for cause.

The court remanded the case to the district court to consider whether the patent holder could rebut the presumption of surrender.

The court reversed the judgment.

The judgment was vacated and remanded where the Veteran's Court committed legal error when it expressly declined to take due account of the rule of prejudicial error, as it was required to do by statute.

The court affirmed the judgment that defendant did not violate the Unfair Practices Act and affirmed the judgment that defendant might have violated the unfair competition law, holding that defendant did not act with the purpose of injuring plaintiffs and that, because the applicable test for an unfair competition law action was stated for the first time by the court, plaintiff was allowed to present additional evidence...

The court affirmed the order in part on the ground that there was no error in the chancellor's reformulation of materiality test for determining director self-interest; the order was reversed in part on ground that the chancellor erred as matter of law in requiring plaintiff to show injury to rebut business judgment presumption of care. The court remanded the cause for further proceedings.

The court reversed the decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.