Nixon v. Blackwell

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Nixon v. Blackwell
by the Delaware Supreme Court
Syllabus

Court Documents
Opinion of the Court

SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE

626 A.2d 1366

ALLEN NIXON, HARRY MATLOCK, ROY JOLLY, FLOYD SCHISLER, DOYLE ROACH, DOYLE GILLIAM, JOHN MILBOURN, TONY FUTRELL, EDWARD WISEMAN, HAROLD BOULAND and E. C. BARTON & COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Defendants Below, Appellants,  v.  GUY C. BLACKWELL, GUY C. BLACKWELL, III, CAROLYN MAI BLACKWELL, NANCY ANN BLACKWELL, Trustee for Guy C. Blackwell, III, NANCY ANN BLACKWELL, Trustee for Carolyn Mai Blackwell, MAI BANKS BLACKWELL, Executrix of the Estate of G. Lawrence Blackwell, LEA ELLEN BLACKWELL, O.G. BLACKWELL, III, DR. O. G. BLACKWELL, Custodian for Claire Blackwell, LAURIE BLACKWELL BLACK, JANET PORTER BLACKWELL, DR. O. G. BLACKWELL, THOMAS M. BIZZELL, Trustee for Nancy Jane Lauck and Amanda Ann Lauck and ST. TIMOTHY EPISCOPAL CHURCH, Plaintiffs Below, Appellees.

Court Below: In the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County. C.A. No. 9041

No. 246  Argued: November 17, 1992 --- Decided: June 22, 1993 --- Rehearing denied July 28, 1993. Mandate issued July 30, 1993. Released for Publication July 30, 1993.

January 12, 1993, Resubmitted on Oral Argument before the Court en Banc. June 7, 1993, Resubmitted to newly-constituted[1] Court en Banc

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Grover C. Brown, Esquire (argued), P. Clarkson Collins, Jr. of Morris, James, Hitchens & Williams, Wilmington, Delaware, Tom D. Womack, Esquire of Barrett, Wheatley, Smith and Deacon, Jonesboro, Arkansas, and A. Wyckliff Nisbet of Friday, Eldredge & Clark, Little Rock, Arkansas, attorneys for appellants.

David A. Drexler, Esquire (argued) of Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell, Wilmington, Delaware, attorneys for appellees.

Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HORSEY, MOORE, and WALSH, Justices, and RIDGELY, President Judge (sitting by designation pursuant to art. IV, § 12), constituting the Court en Banc.

Notes[edit]

  1. This matter was submitted on oral argument before the Court en Banc on January 12, 1993, at which time the Court was comprised of Veasey, Chief Justice, Horsey, Moore, and Walsh, Justices and Christie, retired Chief Justice (sitting by designation pursuant to Article IV §§ 12 and 38, Justice Holland having previously recused himself). Tragically, retired Chief Justice Christie was killed in an automobile accident on May 28, 1993, before a decision in this matter could be rendered. By Order dated June 7, 1993, the Honorable Henry duPont Ridgely, President Judge of the Superior Court was designated to sit on the Court in place of retired Chief Justice Christie and the matter was, by operation of that Order, resubmitted without the need for further oral argument to the newly-constituted Court en Banc as of June 7, 1993, on the basis of the briefs, and the tape and the transcript of the oral argument before the Court en Banc as then constituted on January 12, 1993.

This work is in the public domain in the U.S. because it is an edict of a government, local or foreign. See § 313.6(C)(2) of the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices. Such documents include "legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials" as well as "any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties."

These do not include works of the Organization of American States, United Nations, or any of the UN specialized agencies. See Compendium III § 313.6(C)(2) and 17 U.S.C. 104(b)(5).


OOjs UI icon alert destructive black-darkred.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.