Cheff v. Mathes

←

Cheff v. Mathes
the Government of Delaware

Syllabus

→

sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.

Cheff v. Mathes, Del. Supr., 199 A.2d 548 (Del. 1964) was a case in which the Delaware Supreme Court first addressed the issue of director conflict of interest in a corporate change of control setting. This case is the predecessor to future seminal corporate law cases including Unocal Corp. v. Mesa Petroleum Co. and Revlon v. MacAndrews. Warning: template has been deprecated.

783589Cheff v. Mathes — Syllabusthe Government of Delaware

Court Documents
Opinion of the Court
Wikipedia article

P. T. CHEFF, KATHARINE N. CHEFF, EDGAR P. LANDWEHR, Defendants Below, Appellants,

v.

ANNE J. MATHES and HARRY LEWIS, Plaintiffs Below, Appellees, v. ROBERT H. TRENKAMP, GEORGE SPATTA, RALPH C. BOALT, JOHN D. AMES, MOTOR PRODUCTS CORPORATION and HOLLAND FURNACE COMPANY, Defendants Below.

ROBERT H. TRENKAMP, Defendant Below, Appellant,

v.

ANNE J. MATHES and HARRY LEWIS, Plaintiffs Below, Appellees, and HOLLAND FURNACE COMPANY, Defendant Below, Appellee

[NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL]

Supreme Court of Delaware

199 A.2d 548; 41 Del. Ch. 494

March 17, 1964, Decided

James M. Tunnell, Jr., and David A. Drexler, of Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell, Wilmington (Hathaway, Latimer, Clink & Robb, Muskegon, Mich., of counsel), for P. T. Cheff, Katharine N. Cheff and Edgar P. Landwehr.

David F. Anderson and Richard L. McMahon, of Berl, Potter & Anderson, Wilmington (Robert H. Trenkamp and Malcolm C. Douglas, Trenkamp & Bovington, Cleveland, Ohio, of counsel), for Robert H. Trenkamp.

Irving Morris, of Cohen & Morris, Wilmington (Charles Trynin, New York City, of counsel), for Holland Furnace Co.

William E. Taylor, Jr., Wilmington, Sidney L. Garwin, New York City (Samuel M. Koenigsberg, Newark, N.J., of counsel), for Anne J. Mathes and Harry Lewis.

TERRY, C. J., and WOLCOTT and CAREY, JJ., sitting.

This work is in the public domain in the U.S. because it is an edict of a government, local or foreign. See § 313.6(C)(2) of the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices. Such documents include "legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials" as well as "any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties."

These do not include works of the Organization of American States, United Nations, or any of the UN specialized agencies. See Compendium III § 313.6(C)(2) and 17 U.S.C. 104(b)(5).

A non-American governmental edict may still be copyrighted outside the U.S. Similar to {{PD-in-USGov}}, the above U.S. Copyright Office Practice does not prevent U.S. states or localities from holding copyright abroad, depending on foreign copyright laws and regulations.

Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse