| Page 1202 586 A.2d 1202 
Frieda H. RABKIN, Harry Lewis, Eric
Emory, Alan Emory, Nancy
Emory, Howard Greenwald, Werner Klugman and
Samuel
Kaufman, Plaintiffs Below, Appellants,
v.
OLIN CORPORATION, Richard B. Berry, John W.
Johnstone, Jr.,
and John M. Henske, Defendants Below,
Appellees. No. 164, 1990. Supreme Court of Delaware.
Submitted: Nov. 27, 1990.
Decided: Dec. 20, 1990. Chancery Court, New Castle
County.
AFFIRMED.
Before MOORE, WALSH and HOLLAND,
Justices.
ORDER
MOORE, Justice.
This 20th day of December, 1990,
it appearing that:
1) This matter has been
considered on the briefs and record.
2) After trial the Vice
Chancellor made findings of fact and reached
conclusions of law in an opinion dated April
17, 1990.
3) In a post trial appeal from
the Court of Chancery this Court has the
authority to review the entire record and to
make its own findings of fact in a proper
case. We have the duty to review the
sufficiency of the evidence and to test the
propriety of the findings of the trial
judge. However, we do not ignore those
findings. If they are sufficiently supported
by the record and are the product of an
orderly and logical deductive process, we
accept them in the exercise of judicial
restraint, even though independently we
might have reached opposite conclusions.
Only if the findings below are clearly
wrong, and justice requires their overturn,
are we free to make contradictory findings
of fact. Levitt v. Bouvier, Del.Supr., 287
A.2d 671, 673 (1972). When, as here, the
determination of facts turns on questions of
credibility and the acceptance or rejection
of "live" testimony by the trial judge, his
findings will be approved upon review. Id.
4) Applying the foregoing
standard of review, we must affirm. Levin v.
Smith, Del.Supr., 513 A.2d 1292, 1301
(1986).
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED
that the judgment of the Court of Chancery
be, and the same hereby is,
AFFIRMED. |
