Supreme Court of Delaware· 8/12/1991

Stuart Kingston, Inc. v. Robinson

Citations

596 A.2d 1378
1991 Del. LEXIS 239

How courts have described this case

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

noting that the standards for evaluating standing under federal law “are generally the same as the standards for determining standing to bring a case or controversy within the courts of Delaware.”
The claimant’s interest “must be distinguishable from the interest shared by other members of a class[.]”
At the standing stage, courts are not “concerned . . . with the merits of the subject matter of the controversy.”
“[S]tate courts apply the concept of standing as a matter of self-restraint to avoid the rendering of advisory opinions . . . .”
“to achieve standing, the plaintiff’s interest in the controversy must be distinguishable from the interest shared by other members of a class or the public in general”
prospective purchasers challenging third party’s exercise of first refusal right “have a concrete and distinct claim and if not permitted to assert it will suffer a direct injury”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Moore, Walsh, Holland

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

13 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

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.