Categories: Delaware Court Opinions

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM PHAR. v. MERCK CO., 746 A.2d 277 (Del. 2000)

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM PHARMACEUTICALS CO., SMITHKLINE BEECHAM HOLDING CORPORATION, SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION, and SMITHKLINE BEECHAM BIOLOGICALS, S.A., Defendants Below, Appellants, v. MERCK CO., INC., Plaintiff Below, Appellee.

No. 403, 1999.Supreme Court of Delaware.Submitted: February 8, 2000.
Decided: February 9, 2000.

Appeal from the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County, C.A. No. 15443.

AFFIRMED.

Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HARTNETT and BERGER, Justices.

ORDER
The Court has carefully considered the orders and rulings dated September 11, 1997, December 15, 1997, and October 13, 1998, the opinion and order of the Court of Chancery dated August 5, 1999, as clarified by letter dated August 13, 1999, and the briefs and oral arguments of the parties. Based thereon, the Court has determined as follows: to the extent the issues raised on appeal are factual, the record evidence supports the trial judge’s factual findings; to the extent the errors alleged on appeal are attributed to an abuse of discretion, the record does not support those assertions; and to the extent the issues raised on appeal are legal, they are controlled by settled Delaware law, which was properly applied.

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

BY THE COURT:

E. NORMAN VEASEY, Chief Justice

jdjungle