Case Title: Telxon Corporation v. Meyerson et al.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 175, 2001

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2001-05-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
TELXON CORPORATION,
Plaintiff Below-
Appellant,
v.
ROBERT F. MEYERSON, DAN R.
WIPFF, ROBERT A. GOODMAN, DR.
RAJ REDDY, and NORTON W. ROSE,
Defendants Below-
Appellees.
§
§
§  No. 175, 2001
§
§  Court Below—Court of Chancery
§  of the State of Delaware,
§  in and for New Castle County
§  C.A. No. 13139
§
§
§
§
§
Submitted: April 20, 2001
  Decided:
May 9, 2001
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH, and HOLLAND, Justices.
O R D E R
This 9th day of May 2001, it appears to the Court that:
(1)
The plaintiff below, Telxon Corporation, has petitioned this Court,
pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 42, to appeal from an interlocutory order of the
Court of Chancery dated March 23, 2001.  The Court of Chancery’s order granted
in part the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and entered judgment for the
defendants on all claims of a breach of duty of loyalty but reserved two duty of care
claims for trial.
-2-
(2)
Telxon contends that it cannot recover damages against its former
directors on the duty of care claims, therefore, it has no incentive to try those
claims. Accordingly, Telxon argues, the Court of Chancery’s order has the same
effect on Telxon’s rights as a final order. It does not appear that Telxon sought
entry of a final judgment on the duty of loyalty claims pursuant to Court of
Chancery Rule 54(b).
(3)
On April 19, 2001, the Court of Chancery refused to certify an
interlocutory appeal to this Court.
(4)
Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound
discretion of this Court and are granted only in extraordinary cases.
(5)
In the exercise of its discretion, this Court has concluded that the
application for interlocutory review does not meet the requirements of Supreme
Court Rule 42(b) and should be refused.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the within
interlocutory appeal is REFUSED.  
BY THE COURT:
/s/ E. Norman Veasey                               
Chief Justice