Court of Chancery of Delaware· 3/21/2006

Carlson v. Hallinan

Citations

925 A.2d 506
2006 Del. Ch. LEXIS 58
2006 WL 4515408

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

holding that executive defendants were on both sides of a decision to cause their company to pay them executive compensation and thus bore the burden of establishing their compensation was entirely fair
noting that, in a bench trial, it is within the court’s discretion to allow a party to supplement the record before judgment
holding post- trial that an accounting would be necessary after “Plaintiffs’ showing of definite instances where [fiduciary] Defendants did not properly allocate expenses”
explaining that a supplemental evidentiary hearing about an affidavit submitted after the close of evidence “would waste judicial resources”
holding defendants failed to show the fairness of their compensation where no credible “attempt to quantify the value of those goods and services or to show the relation between them and the [compensation]” was made
rejecting contract claim where plaintiffs failed to prove “that any damages resulted from the violation.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Parsons

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

78 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

56 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.