Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 150, 155, 907 P.2d 536, 541 (App.1995) (relying on Principles as authoritative in a different context). Section 7.22 of Principles provides, in relevant part: (a) The fair value of shares under [corporate transactions giving rise to appraisal rights] should be the value of the eligible holder’s proportionate interest in the corporation, without any discount for minority status or, absent extraordinary circumstances, lack of marketability. Subject to Subsections (b) and (e), fair value should be determined using the customary valuation concepts and techniques generally employed in the relevant securities and financial markets for similar businesses in the context of the transaction giving rise to appraisal. (Emphasis added.) See also Weinberger v. UOP, Inc., 457 A2d 701, 713 (Del.1983) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 31 Both parties here cite a rule of law 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that determining corporate value may be done by including proof of value by any techniques or methods which are generally considered acceptable in the financial community and otherwise admissible in court (B) holding the aggregate value of the land and its improvements is the controlling value (C) holding determination of property value in case to decide if assessed value was excessive is not a liquidated demand where only evidence of property value was the conclusory allegation of value in plaintiffs unsworn petition (D) holding that calculations done by applying product rule were generally accepted in relevant scientific community (E) holding in an equitable distribution case that the trial court should make specific findings regarding the value of a spouses professional practice and the existence and value of its goodwill and should clearly indicate the evidence on which its valuations are based preferably noting the valuation method or methods on which it relied internal quotation marks omitted
Output (English): holding determination of property value in case to decide if assessed value was excessive is not a liquidated demand where only evidence of property value was the conclusory allegation of value in plaintiffs unsworn petition