Corp. v. Mesa Petroleum Co., 493 A.2d at 949, 954-57. 46 . Unocal Corp. v. Mesa Petroleum Co., 493 A.2d at 955. 47 . Unitrin, Inc. v. Am. Gen. Corp., 651 A.2d at 1387. 48 . Id. 49 . Id. (citation omitted). 50 . Id. at 1367. 51 . Unocal Corp. v. Mesa Petroleum Co., 493 A.2d at 955. 52 . Id. (citation omitted). 53 . Id. (citations omitted). 54 . Mills Acquisition Co. v. Macmillan Inc., 559 A.2d 1261, 1288 (Del.1988). 55 . Id. (citation omitted). 56 . Id. 57 . Williams v. Geier, 671 A.2d 1368 (Del.1996). 58 . Stroud v. Grace, 606 A.2d 75 (Del.1992). 59 . In re NCS Healthcare, Inc., 2002 WL 31720732, at *16 (Del.Ch. Nov. 22, 2002). See Unocal Corp. v. Mesa Petroleum Co., 493 A.2d 946, 955 (Del. 1985). 60 .See Paramount Communications, Inc. v. Time Inc., 571 A.2d 1140, 1151 (Del. 1989) (<HOLDING>). 61 . Unocal Corp. v. Mesa Petroleum Co., 493
holding that the omission of an element is not a structural error subject to automatic reversal but rather  where objected to  is subject to harmless error analysis holding evidentiary rulings are subject to harmless error analysis holding trial errors are subject to a harmless error analysis holding that structural safety devices in a merger agreement are properly subject to a unocal analysis holding that confrontation clause issues are subject to harmless error analysis