Myron T. Steele

Steven Drake appealed from the Superior Court’s summary dismissal of his second motion for postconviction relief, which was filed while a timely motion for reargument remained pending in that court. The Delaware Supreme Court issued a notice directing Drake to explain why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over criminal interlocutory appeals. Drake did not respond within the required ten-day period, making dismissal unopposed. The court therefore dismissed the appeal under Supreme Court Rules 3(b)(2) and 29(b).

criminal lawprocedure

Robert Fink appealed his sentence for a violation of probation from the Superior Court to the Delaware Supreme Court. After the Superior Court granted Fink's motion to modify the sentence by removing the Level V portions to allow inpatient substance treatment, the court noted that this modification rendered the appeal moot. The Senior Court Clerk then issued a notice directing Fink to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as moot, but Fink did not respond within the required period. The Supreme Court therefore dismissed the appeal as unopposed under Supreme Court Rules 3(b)(2) and 29(b).

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves Caleb Ravin's appeal from a Delaware Family Court order that declined to docket or accept his July 2021 motion to revoke a 2013 child support consent order requiring him to pay $600 monthly to Lynn Spears for their son. The Family Court had previously issued a 2020 custody order granting Spears sole custody, terminating Ravin's visitation, and restricting his future filings due to concerns over frivolous litigation, and it applied that restriction to reject the new motion on res judicata grounds. On appeal, the Delaware Supreme Court vacated the Family Court's order and remanded the case, holding that the proper procedure for handling a litigant previously found to have abused the judicial process is to follow the requirements of 10 Del. C. § 8803(e) before denying or rejecting a pleading.

family lawprocedure

In Peeta v. Blank, the Delaware Supreme Court reviewed a Family Court order granting permanent guardianship of a child to the paternal grandmother after the father's death in 2016, over the opposition of the incarcerated mother. The Family Court held a hearing, considered testimony from family members, a school counselor, and a social study investigator, interviewed the child, and found by clear and convincing evidence that guardianship was in the child's best interests under 13 Del. C. § 2353, citing the mother's ongoing incarceration, limited prior involvement, and the child's expressed preference to remain with grandparents. The mother appealed, alleging factual errors, witness manipulation, credibility issues, and ineffective counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Family Court applied the correct legal standard, that any factual mistakes were immaterial, and that credibility determinations and factual findings would not be reweighed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.

family law

This case involved a contract dispute arising from Nationwide's purchase of a 65% interest in NorthPointe Capital, an investment advisory firm, for $25 million, where the buyer gained rights to manage seven funds subject to express termination provisions including a fee capped at $3.5 million within three years or no fee thereafter. The Superior Court awarded NorthPointe $15.1 million in damages on the theory that Nationwide breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by terminating the management rights sooner than expected. The Delaware Supreme Court reversed the judgment, ruling that Delaware law requires enforcement of the contract's express terms and prohibits using the implied covenant to obtain benefits or protections that were not secured during negotiations. The court reasoned that the parties had already allocated risks and compensation explicitly in the agreement, including limits on any expectancy tied to managing the funds, which represented only 20% of assets under management.

business & regulatory

This case concerns two life insurance policies issued in Delaware that insurers alleged were part of stranger-originated life insurance (STOLI) schemes, where the insured procured coverage with the intent to immediately transfer beneficial interests to third-party investors lacking any insurable interest in the insured's life. After the insured's death, the insurers sought declaratory judgments that the policies were void as illegal wagers on human life, despite the expiration of the two-year contestability period. The Delaware Supreme Court, answering certified questions from the federal district court, held that an insurer may challenge a policy's validity for lack of insurable interest even after the contestability period because such a policy is void as against public policy and never comes into force. The court further determined that Delaware statutes prohibit an insured from procuring a policy with the prearranged intent to transfer it to a person without an insurable interest, though a validly procured policy may later be assigned. The trustee of a Delaware trust does not automatically gain an insurable interest when the insured intends an immediate transfer to an investor lacking such interest.

business & regulatory

Sandra Kline appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board regarding her former employer, Super Fresh Food Markets, Inc. The Delaware Supreme Court issued a notice to show cause after Kline failed to file her opening brief and appendix by the April 1, 2010 deadline. Kline did not respond to the notice, leading the court to treat her inaction as consent to dismissal. The court therefore dismissed the appeal pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 3(b)(2) and 29(b).

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involves an appeal filed by Cornell Gray against the State of Delaware in the Supreme Court of Delaware. The court issued a notice requiring Gray to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for failing to file his opening brief and appendix as required. Gray did not respond to the notice within the ten-day period. As a result, the court dismissed the appeal under Supreme Court Rules 3(b) and 29(b), treating the dismissal as unopposed due to the lack of response.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves an appeal by Robert B. McCullough from a lower court decision in a matter brought by the State of Delaware. The Delaware Supreme Court dismissed the appeal after the appellant failed to file the required opening brief and appendix. Notices directing the appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed were sent to the address provided in the notice of appeal but were returned as undeliverable. The court deemed the appellant's failure to maintain a viable mailing address to be consent to dismissal and ordered the appeal dismissed under Supreme Court Rules 3(b)(2), 12(c), and 29(b).

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved an appeal by Brian I. Cammile from an October 28, 2009 order issued in a proceeding against the State of Delaware. On December 15, 2009, the Delaware Supreme Court issued a notice directing the appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for failure to file the notice of appeal within the required thirty-day period. The appellant did not respond to the notice within the ten-day window provided, rendering the dismissal unopposed. The court therefore dismissed the appeal pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 3(b)(2) and 29(b).

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved an appeal by Devin T. Bagwell against the State of Delaware in the Supreme Court of Delaware. The court issued a notice to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for failure to file the notice of appeal in a timely manner under Supreme Court Rule 29(b). Bagwell did not respond to the notice within the required ten-day period, leading the court to deem the dismissal unopposed. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 3(b) and 29(b), the appeal was dismissed on that basis.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute between Reserves Development LLC and Crystal Properties LLC (later assigned to Bella Via) over a purchase and sale agreement for 30 lots in a residential development, where Bella Via allegedly failed to pay its pro rata share of infrastructure costs, leading to claims of breach of contract and misrepresentation. The Superior Court awarded Reserves damages of about $604,000 after making several offsets for incomplete or unproven work, and on remand added a $152,435 judgment against two Bella Via members for misrepresentation related to funding promises. On appeal, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed only one minor offset of $5,461.37 for landscaping costs as unsupported by the record, but affirmed all other offsets and the misrepresentation award because the trial judge's reductions were based on a logical deductive process reflecting overpayments and stipulated post-trial amounts. The court reviewed factual findings for abuse of discretion and legal issues de novo, finding no clear error in the remaining determinations.

business & regulatorypropertyproceduretorts & liability

This case is an appeal by employer Johnson Controls, Inc. from a Superior Court decision in favor of claimant Sheila Evans. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court. The court reached its decision on the basis of the lower court's well-reasoned opinion dated May 13, 2009, without further elaboration.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved an appeal by Peter and Patricia Kostyshyn from a Court of Chancery order denying their motion to file a complaint in forma pauperis, which had not been assigned a civil action number. The Supreme Court of Delaware issued a notice to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for failing to comply with Supreme Court Rule 42 regarding interlocutory orders. Since the appellants did not respond to the notice within the required period, the court dismissed the appeal as unopposed under Supreme Court Rules 3(b) and 29(b).

procedure

This case involves an appeal by Lauren Chase from a Family Court decision against Dorothy Logan. The Delaware Supreme Court issued a notice to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for failure to pay the Family Court filing fee and transcript costs, thereby failing to diligently prosecute the appeal. The appellant did not respond to the notice within the required ten-day period, rendering dismissal unopposed. The court therefore dismissed the appeal pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 3(b) and 29(b).

family lawprocedure

The case involved an appeal by plaintiffs Noah Yoder, through his guardian, and Sadie Yoder against defendants Delmarva Power & Light Company and Mr. Longarm, Inc. The Delaware Supreme Court reviewed the Superior Court's November 26, 2008 decision in the matter. The court decided to affirm the judgment of the Superior Court. The core reasoning was that the lower court's decision was well-reasoned and provided an adequate basis for the outcome.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved Phillip Sammons suing attorney Lisa Andersen and her firm for alleged negligence in preparing and advising on a revocation of an antenuptial agreement that Sammons and his wife signed in 2001, which reinstated full marital property rights upon divorce. The Superior Court granted summary judgment to the defendants, and the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that the revocation document was clear on its face, that Sammons as a layperson could not justifiably rely on any alleged misrepresentation or failure to explain its terms, and that his later affidavit contradicting his deposition was properly rejected as a sham, leaving no genuine issues of material fact. The decision also addressed but did not rely solely on the three-year statute of limitations for the negligence claim.

torts & liabilityprocedurefamily lawproperty

Lillian Riedel sued her husband's former employer, ICI Americas Inc., for negligence, claiming the company failed to prevent asbestos from being carried home on his clothing and failed to warn her of the risks, which she alleged proximately caused her to develop asbestosis. The trial court granted ICI's motion for summary judgment, holding that no legally significant relationship existed that would create a duty owed to Mrs. Riedel. On appeal, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed, noting that Mrs. Riedel had presented her claims below as nonfeasance rather than misfeasance and could not shift theories on appeal. The court further found no special relationship under the Restatement (Second) of Torts that would impose a duty on the employer toward the employee's spouse.

torts & liability

This case involves an appeal by Andrew J. Heverin challenging his criminal conviction in Delaware state court. The State filed a motion to remand the appeal to the Superior Court for entry of an order dismissing the charges against the appellant, based on a confession of error. The appellant consented to the motion. The Delaware Supreme Court granted the motion and remanded the case with directions to allow dismissal of the charges.

criminal lawprocedure

In Wright v. Moore, a personal injury lawsuit arising from two car accidents, the plaintiff sought to reopen discovery after remand for a new trial in order to introduce evidence of additional medical expenses incurred since the first trial, which had ended in a defense verdict later reversed on appeal. The trial judge denied the motion to modify the pretrial scheduling order, stating that all discovery deadlines had lapsed. The Delaware Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to consider the motion under the Superior Court Rule 16 standard of preventing manifest injustice and by not allowing the opposing party an opportunity to show prejudice. The court further determined that the trial judge's comments reflected an appearance of bias, requiring reassignment to a new judge on remand.

proceduretorts & liability