Jack B. Jacobs

This case involved an appeal by Bruce Porter from a December 13, 2021 Family Court order that resolved several issues related to the parties' divorce. Porter filed his notice of appeal on February 25, 2022, after the January 12, 2022 deadline, citing his contraction of COVID-19 and poor health as the reason for the delay. The Delaware Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the timely filing of a notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement that must be strictly followed. The court reasoned that an appellant's pro se status and personal health issues do not excuse noncompliance unless the delay is attributable to court-related personnel, which was not shown here.

family lawprocedure

Millard Price appealed the Superior Court's denial of his motion under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a) to vacate or modify his sentence for second-degree murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Price claimed the sentence was illegal because the required Greentree Program no longer exists, and that assaults by correctional officers and inadequate medical care violated his Eighth Amendment rights. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the denial, reasoning that prison conditions do not support relief under Rule 35(a), Eighth Amendment challenges to post-sentencing events do not permit collateral attack on the sentence in this context, and any medical-based modification requires a Department of Correction application under 11 Del. C. § 4217. However, the court remanded for the limited purpose of modifying the sentence order to reflect the DOC's discretion to assign an alternative drug treatment program. The court reviewed the denial for abuse of discretion and found no merit in the appeal except for the program substitution issue.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case involves stockholders of AmerisourceBergen Corporation seeking to inspect the company's books and records under Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law to investigate potential breaches of fiduciary duty and mismanagement related to opioid distribution practices. The Court of Chancery ordered the production of certain documents and allowed a deposition to identify relevant records. On appeal, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a Section 220 demand stating a proper investigatory purpose need not specify the stockholders' ultimate objective if wrongdoing is confirmed, that establishing actionable wrongdoing is not always required, and that the post-trial deposition was within the court's discretion.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved Jeffrey D. Scott's appeal from a Superior Court order denying his motion for post-conviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. Scott had been convicted of second-degree murder as a lesser-included offense, one count of possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of a felony, and one count of endangering the welfare of a child, following an incident in which he stabbed his girlfriend to death. He claimed that both his trial and appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance in multiple respects, including failing to object to certain evidence and arguments. The court affirmed the denial of relief, holding that Scott's claims failed to satisfy either prong of the Strickland test because they were conclusory and did not demonstrate deficient performance or resulting prejudice. The court also rejected a related claim under Cooke v. State after remand.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves an appeal by Lauren A. Layton from a Family Court decision against Vernon J. Layton, Jr. The Delaware Supreme Court issued a notice to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed because the appellant failed to pay the Family Court filing fee and transcript costs. The appellant did not respond to the notice within the required ten-day period. As a result, the court dismissed the appeal as unopposed under Supreme Court Rules 3(b)(2) and 29(b).

family lawprocedure

This case involved an appeal by Ivize of Milwaukee, LLC and Ivize of Kansas City, LLC from a Court of Chancery ruling in breach of contract actions against Compex Litigation Support, LLC and Compex Legal Services, Inc. After their counsel withdrew, the appellants, as limited liability companies, were required to obtain new legal representation to proceed in the Delaware Supreme Court. Despite notices from the court clerk instructing them to secure counsel by a deadline, no appearance was entered, and the representatives failed to respond to a subsequent show cause order. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, deeming the lack of response as consent to dismissal under applicable Supreme Court rules.

procedurebusiness & regulatory