Kahn v. Sullivan

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Kahn v. Sullivan
by the Delaware Supreme Court
Syllabus
    
Court Documents
Opinion of the Court

Supreme Court of Delaware

594 A.2d 48

ALAN R. KAHN, BARNETT STEPAK, CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, OBJECTORS BELOW, APPELLANTS,  v.  JOSEPH SULLIVAN AND ALAN BRODY, PLAINTIFFS BELOW, MICHAEL HAMMER, SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF DR. ARMAND HAMMER, OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, DR. RAY IRANI, ARTHUR B. KRIM, MORRIE A. MOSS, AZIZ D. SYRIANI, O.C. DAVIS, SENATOR ALBERT GORE, ARTHUR GROMAN, MICHAEL A. HAMMER, DAVID A. HENTSCHEL, J. ROGER HIRL, JOHN KLUGE, LOUIS NIZER, GEORGE O. NOLLEY, DR. C. ERWIN PIPER, GERALD M. STERN, ROSEMARY TOMICH, DEFENDANTS BELOW, THE ARMAND HAMMER MUSEUM OF ART AND CULTURAL CENTER, INC., INTERVENOR BELOW, APPELLEES

No. 301, 312, 313, 1990 (Consolidated)  Argued: July 9, 1991[1] --- Decided: July 9, 1991

Robert D. Goldberg, Esquire, Biggs and Battaglia, of Wilmington, Delaware, Sidney Silverman, Esquire (argued), Silverman, Harnes & Obstefeld, of New York, New York, and Susan Henrichson, Esquire (argued), Deputy Attorney General for the State of California, for objectors-appellants, Alan R. Kahn and California Public Employees' Retirement System respectively.

Thomas G. Hughes, Esquire, Schlusser, Reiver, Hughes & Sisk, of Wilmington, Delaware for objector-appellant, Barnett Stepak.

William Prickett, Esquire (argued), Prickett, Jones, Elliott, Kristol & Schnee, of Wilmington, Delaware, for plaintiffs-appellees, Joseph Sullivan and Alan Brody.

Grover C. Brown, Esquire (argued), and Norris P. Wright, Esquire, Morris, James, Hitchens & Williams, of Wilmington, Delaware, for defendants-appellees, Senator Gore, Mr. Kluge, Mr. Krim, Mr. Nizer, Mr. Nolley, Dr. Piper, Mr. Syriani and Ms. Tomich.

Bruce M. Stargatt, Esquire, Edward B. Maxwell, 2nd, Esquire, Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor, of Wilmington, Delaware, Bruce W. Kauffman, Esquire, Stephen J. Mathes, Esquire, and Camille J. Wolfe, Esquire, Dilworth, Paxson, Kalish & Kauffman, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for individual defendants-appellees, Dr. Irani, Mr. Moss, Mr. Davis, Mr. Groman, Mr. Hammer, Mr. Hentschel, Mr. Hirl, Mr. Stern, and Michael Hammer, Special Administrator of the Estate of Dr. Armand Hammer.

Charles Crompton, Esquire, Donald J. Wolfe, Jr., Esquire, Potter, Anderson & Corroon, of Wilmington, Delaware, for defendant-appellee, Occidental Petroleum Corporation.

Rodman Ward, Jr., Esquire, and Marc B. Tucker, Esquire, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, of Wilmington, Delaware, for intervenor-appellee, The Armand Hammer Museum of Art and Cultural Center, Inc.

Christie, Chief Justice, Horsey and Holland, Justices.

Footnotes[edit]

  1. One of the parties, Dr. Armand Hammer, died on December 10, 1990 during the course of briefing this appeal. When this Court heard oral argument on January 23, 1991, the litigants were advised of the need to substitute Dr. Hammer's estate as a party. Supr. Ct. R. 31(c). The announcement of a disposition in this appeal has been delayed until the estate of Dr. Armand Hammer was substituted as a party. The substitution occurred on July 9, 1991, following protracted proceedings in California.
This work is in the public domain in the U.S. because it is an edict of a government, local or foreign. See § 206.01 of the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices. Such documents include "judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal documents."

These do not include works of the Organization of American States, United Nations, or any of the UN specialized agencies. See Compendium II § 206.03 and 17 U.S.C. 104(b)(5).


Nuvola apps important.svg
A non-American governmental edict may still be copyrighted outside the U.S. Similar to {{PD-in-USGov}}, the above U.S. Copyright Office Practice does not prevent U.S. states or localities from holding copyright abroad, depending on foreign copyright laws and regulations.