Justia Delaware Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted of two counts of rape in the first degree for raping his nine-year-old niece. On appeal, defendant contended, among other things, that the trial judge committed reversible error in denying his mistrial motion after prejudicial testimony was given regarding his prior conviction for a similar sexual offense against defendant's other niece. The court held that when the jury heard that defendant had committed a similar sexual offense against his other niece, this gave rise to an impermissible inference that he had committed the offense for which he was being tried. Therefore, a mistrial was required in the circumstances and the judgments of the Superior Court were reversed and the matter remanded for a new trial. To provide guidance at that new trial and in other cases, the court also commented on additional arguments made by defendant. View "Gomez v. State" on Justia Law

This appeal arose out of a contest for control of Trans-Resources, Inc., a Delaware corporation, where plaintiffs brought a Court of Chancery action under 8 Del. C. 225 against defendant to determine which stockholder group possessed the majority voting interest entitled to elect the Trans-Resources board of directors. The court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Chancery in so far as it embodied and implemented the rulings in the Merits and Spoliation Opinions; and reversed to the extent it adjudicated the beneficial ownership of the Orly Trust Shares and the Genger Shares based on the determinations made in its August 9, 2010 Side Letter Opinion and August 18, 2010 Final Judgment Order. View "Genger v. TR Investors, LLC, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff alleged that years of living with her husband, who worked around products containing asbestos as a maintenance technician for defendant, exposed her to asbestos fibers and subsequently caused her to suffer from bilateral interstitial fibrosis and bilateral pleural thickening of the lungs. Plaintiff appealed from a Superior Court order denying her Motion to Amend her household asbestos exposure complaint as futile. The court held that, because the allegations in plaintiff's amended complaint amount to a claim against defendant for nonfeasance, and the complaint did not allege any "special relationship" between plaintiff and defendant, her proposed amendments, if allowed, would be futile. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Price, et al. v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co." on Justia Law

Appellant appealed from Family Court orders granting the Division of Family Services' petitions for the termination of her parental rights in her four minor children. At issue was whether the Family Court erroneously denied her Rule 41(b) Motion to Dismiss and failed to address the requisite best interest of the child factors when terminating her rights. The court held that, by presenting evidence to support her defense after the Family Court judge denied her Motion to Dismiss, appellant waived her right to contest the dismissal. Even if she stood on her motion, however, the Family Court judge had considerable discretion to deny it and under the facts of the case, the dismissal was not an abuse of discretion. The court also held that the judge considered the best interest of the child factors appropriately and made conclusions after finding facts that were not clearly wrong. Accordingly, the judgment of the Family Court was affirmed. View "Stearns v. Div. of Family Serv., et al. " on Justia Law

Sally Jackson appealed from a Superior Court order affirming the judgment of the Industrial Accident Board (IAB) denying her claim for total disability compensation. She claimed that both the IAB and the Superior Court erroneously denied her claim because her retirement did not bar her ability to receive workers' compensation benefits. The court held that the record contained sufficient evidence to support the IAB's decision to deny her total disability benefits where Jackson voluntarily retired for a reason other than her work-related knee injury, had removed herself from the job market without seeking reemployment or contemplating seeking it, and was enjoying her retirement lifestyle with her husband. Accordingly, the court affirmed the Superior Court's order. View "Estate of Jackson v. Genesis Health Ventures" on Justia Law