Casebook editors, including Professor Stephen Bainbridge of UCLA, complain about the prodigious length of recent Delaware corporate law judicial opinions, especially those written by its Chancery Court. As I edit a round of recent cases for my spring course and new edition of my casebook, I add a related complaint: the proliferation of footnote use in Delaware court opinions. This practice tends both to lengthen opinions plus complicate practical tasks facing teachers and editors.
As a practical matter, a style has developed in Delaware over the past decade of inserting case citations and other authorities in sequentially numbered footnotes rather than in textual discussion. This practice mirrors the style traditionally used in scholarly writing and is a sharp departure from the standard practice in judicial opinions and litigation briefs.
For a casebook editor, this is annoying because it requires tracking relevant footnotes separately and then preparing selected footnotes or, for ease of student reading, relocating the relevant case citations from footnotes into bracketed citations within the text.
As to length, it is no longer uncommon to read Delaware corporate law opinions with more than 50 footnotes and a fair number bloat more than 100 footnotes. Many contain meditations on matters remote from the issues the court is required to address. They sometimes present long string cites, increasingly to include scholarly articles and treatises.