Stifel Financial Corp. v. Cochran

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that advancements were required under mandatory provision so long as mandatory indemnification under Section 145(c) remained a possibility
• holding that indemnification claims brought in Court of Chancery are contractual rights subject to the statute of limitations defined in 10 Del. C. § 8106
• holding that the reason for awarding “fees on fees” in workers’ compensation claims is equally applicable for awarding attorney’s fees for time spent on a fee application under other sections of Delaware’s Code
• holding that litigants who prevail under section 145 are entitled to fees on fees because otherwise “indemnification would be incomplete” and “[t]here is no compelling reason to deprive claimants of full indemnification, in accordance with the policy of § 145”
• holding “indemnification for expenses incurred in successfully prosecuting an indemnification suit are . . . authorized by law”
• noting that “without an award of attorneys’ fees for the indemnification suit itself, indemnification would be incomplete”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).