Summary
recognizing the analysis of Section 242(b)'s applicability was "clearly controlled by this Court's decision in [Dickey Clay]. See also [Orban]."
Summary of this case from In re Fox Corp./Snap Section 242 Litig.Opinion
No. 229, 2002
Submitted: August 9, 2002
Decided: August 29, 2002
Court Below-Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County C.A. No. 19290.
Affirmed.
Unpublished opinion is below.
BRUCE C. MONK and HOWARD DENTON, Petitioners Below-Appellants, v. IMAGING AUTOMATION, INC., Respondent Below-Appellee. No. 229, 2002 In the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. Submitted: August 9, 2002 Decided: August 29, 2002
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and HOLLAND, Justices.
ORDER
JOSEPH T. WALSH, Justice.
This 29th day of August 2002, upon consideration of the briefs of the parties, it appears to the Court that the March 26, 2002 judgment of the Court of Chancery should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons set forth in the Court of Chancery's ruling from the bench dated March 21, 2002. This matter is clearly controlled by this Court's decision in Hartford Acc. Indem. Co. v. W. S. Dickey Clay Mfg. Co., 24 A.2d 315 (Del. 1942). See also Orban v. Field, 1993 WL 547187 (Del.Ch.).
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Court of Chancery is AFFIRMED.