Title: In re Pure Resources, Inc. Shareholders Litigation Cardinal Capital Management, LLC v. Amerman, et al.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 557, 2002
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: October 10, 2002

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN RE PURE RESOURCES, INC. 
 
§ 
SHAREHOLDERS LITIGATION,  
§ 
No. 557, 2002 
__________________________ 
 
§ 
§ 
CARDINAL CAPITAL   
 
 
§ 
MANAGEMENT, LLC,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below:  Court of    
individually, and on behalf of  
 
 
§ 
Chancery of the State of 
all others similarly situated, 
 
 
§ 
Delaware in and for 
§ 
New Castle County 
Plaintiffs Below, 
 
§ 
(Consol. C.A.No.19876) 
Appellants,  
 
§ 
§ 
v. 
§ 
§ 
JOHN W. AMERMAN, DARRELL D. 
§ 
CHESSUM, KEITH A. COVINGTON, 
§ 
JOHN W. CREIGHTON, JR.,  
 
§ 
JAMES W. CROWNOVER, FRANK C. 
§ 
HERRINGER, JACK D. HIGHTOWER, § 
CHARLES R. LARSON,  GRAYDON H. § 
LAUGHBAUM, JR., TIMOTHY H.  
§ 
LING, H.D. MAXWELL, DONALD B. 
§ 
RICE, KEVIN W. SHARER, GEORGE G. § 
STALEY, MARINA V.N. WHITMAN, 
§ 
CHARLES R. WILLIAMSON,  
 
§ 
HERBERT C. WILLIAMSON, III,  
§ 
UNOCAL CORPORATION, UNION OIL 
§ 
COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, and  
§ 
PURE RESOURCES, INC., 
 
 
§ 
§ 
Defendants Below, § 
Appellees.  
 
 
Submitted:  October 9, 2002 
Decided:  October 10, 2002 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and STEELE, Justices. 
 
 
2 
O R D E R 
 
This 10
th day of October, 2002, it appears to the Court that: 
 
1)  The plaintiffs-appellants, Cardinal Capital Management, LLC, 
(“Cardinal”), individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, have 
petitioned this Court, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 42, to appeal from an 
interlocutory order issued by the Court of Chancery on October 3, 2002. 
2)  On October 9, 2002, the Court of Chancery denied certification of 
Cardinal’s petition to certify an interlocutory appeal to this Court. 
3)  Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound 
discretion of this Court and are granted only in extraordinary cases. 
4)  In the exercise of its discretion, this Court has concluded that the 
application for interlocutory review does not meet the requirements of Supreme 
Court 42(b) for the reasons stated in Vice Chancellor Strine’s Order and should 
be refused. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the within 
interlocutory appeal is REFUSED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
Justice