From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Grimes v. Donald

Supreme Court of Delaware
Oct 26, 2001
784 A.2d 1080 (Del. 2001)

Opinion

No. 3, 2001

Decided: October 26, 2001

Court of Chancery New Castle County, C.A. No. 13358

AFFIRMED


Unpublished Opinion is below.

CHARLES L. GRIMES, Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. JAMES L. DONALD, CLEMENT M. BROWN, JR., FRANK J. CUMMISKEY, RAYMOND J. DEMPSEY, JOHN § FAIRCLOUGH, JAMES L. FISCHER, ROBERT S. FOLSOM, JAMES P. LEAKE, JAMES M. NOLAN, JIM A. WATSON, Defendants Below, Appellees, and DSC COMMUNICATIONS § CORPORATION, Nominal Defendant Below, Appellee. No. 3, 2001 Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. Decided: October 26, 2001

Before WALSH, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices.

ORDER

This 26th day of October, 2001, on consideration of the briefs and arguments of the parties, it appears to the Court that:

1) This appeal involves an application for attorneys' fees by Charles L. Grimes, a stockholder whose claims were mooted by a merger. The Court of Chancery dismissed the fee petition because it found no basis on which to infer that there was a causal connection between Grimes' claims and the subsequent corporate actions that mooted those claims. On appeal, this Court concluded that the fee petition should not have been dismissed and that the corporate defendants had the burden of rebutting the inference, created by the sequence of events, that there was a causal connection.

Grimes v. DSC Communications Corporation, Del. Supr., 2000 WL 949628.

2) On remand, the Court of Chancery found that the corporate defendants rebutted the inference that Grimes' litigation influenced James L. Donald's decision to retire as CEO and Chairman of DSC Communications Corporation. The Court of Chancery relied on the unrebutted affidavit of DSC's General Counsel, who stated that the Grimes litigation was not a factor and did not in any way cause Donald's departure.

3) Since the trial court's finding is supported by the record, we affirm its decision denying the application for attorneys' fees without considering the court's other conclusions as to mootness or the merit of Grimes' claims.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Court of Chancery be, and the same hereby is, AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Grimes v. Donald

Supreme Court of Delaware
Oct 26, 2001
784 A.2d 1080 (Del. 2001)
Case details for

Grimes v. Donald

Case Details

Full title:CHARLES L. GRIMES, Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. JAMES L. DONALD, CLEMENT…

Court:Supreme Court of Delaware

Date published: Oct 26, 2001

Citations

784 A.2d 1080 (Del. 2001)