A Practitioner's Perspective on the Tenure of Chancellor William T. Allen
| Publication year | 1997 |
| Citation | Vol. 21 No. 02 |
Historians have engaged in a continuing debate about whether the officeholder makes the office or the office makes its holder. During his twelve-year term, which included the most dynamic period of corporate takeover activity in history, Chancellor William T. Allen carried on the substantial and rich history of his predecessors. He also added new dimensions to the position of Chancellor in his creative approach to resolving the matters brought before him. One of his most notable innovations in the area of corporate law was to breach the artificial barricade that often separates legal decision-making from fundamental principles of economics. The result was not only the reasonable resolution of corporate disputes, but also fidelity to the economic underpinnings of capital formation and to concepts of social utility.
Chancellor Allen is most widely known for his landmark decisions in the field of corporate law. However, Chancellor Allen would frequently tell people that he found the noncorporate cases within his jurisdiction to be among the most interesting. As a court of equity, the Court of Chancery has jurisdiction over a variety of matters, including applications for termination of life support. Chancellor Allen often observed that the consideration of such cases constituted many of his most challenging (and most rewarding) moments as a judge.
Chancellor Allen also brought a creative approach to the many functional tasks confronting a trial judge. Because the Court of Chancery has no juries, he discouraged advocates from presenting dramatic pleas, encouraging them instead to focus succinctly on a reasoned analysis of the facts and law applicable to a given case. This is not to say that Chancellor Allen did not demonstrate an appreciation for drama. In fact, Chancellor Allen was an avid supporter of the arts generally, and drama specifically. The Chancellor's love of drama is reflected in a number of his decisions, which often built a level of suspense, leaving the reader unsure of the conclusion until the final pages of his opinion.
His approach to evidentiary issues was refreshingly pragmatic. Rather than slavishly adhere to precedent on interpretation...
To continue reading
Request your trial