Case Title: Honeywell International v. Air Products & Chemicals

Citation: 

Docket Number: 253, 2005

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2005-06-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL  
§ 
INC. and GEM MICROELECTRONIC § 
MATERIALS, L.L.C., 
 
 
§ No. 253, 2005 
 
 
 
§       
 
Plaintiffs Below, 
 
§ Court Below: Court of Chancery  
 
 
 
§ of the State of Delaware in and for 
              v. 
 
 
§ New Castle County 
 
 
 
§ 
AIR PRODUCTS & CHEMICALS,   
§ C.A. No. 20434 
INC., 
 
 
§  
 
 
 
§  
 
Defendant Below. 
 
§ 
 
 
Submitted: June 14, 2005 
 
Decided: 
June 23, 2005 
 
Before HOLLAND, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
 
This 23rd day of June 2005, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) By order dated June 7, 2005, the Court of Chancery of the State of 
Delaware certified questions of law to this Court in accordance with Supreme 
Court Rule 41. 
 
(2) Supreme Court Rule 41(a) provides, in part, that only questions of law 
may be certified to this Court for decision.  Supr. Ct. R. 41(a)(i). 
 
(3) The following questions have been certified by the Court of Chancery: 
(a) In calculating the additional damages ordered by the Supreme 
Court for the period of 2005 through 2008, may or must the Court of 
Chancery hear additional evidence, not available at the time of trial, 
for the purpose of calculating Honeywell’s damages? 
 
2
(b) May or must the Court of Chancery hear additional evidence, not 
available at the time of trial, for the purpose of quantifying 
Honeywell’s damages for the period of 2003 through 2005? 
     
 
 
(4) The above questions do not present questions of law within the 
contemplation of Rule 41, but, rather, involve matters that are vested in the trial 
court’s sound discretion.  Accordingly, the criteria for certification under Supreme 
Court Rule 41 are not satisfied in this particular case. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the certification by the Court of 
Chancery of the State of Delaware is hereby REFUSED.  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs  
 
 
 
  
                                                Justice