Justia Delaware Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Articles Posted in October, 2011
by
Defendant was convicted of First Degree Murder, sentenced to death, and subsequently appealed from the denial of his motion for postconviction relief under Superior Court Rule 61. On appeal, defendant raised eight claims of error. The eighth claim was that the trial court erred by refusing to grant defendant's motion to issue a material witness warrant. The court held that because many of defendant's claims were procedurally barred and the balance lacked substantive merit, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Taylor v. State" on Justia Law

by
This case arose when doctors all agreed that claimant suffered a permanent partial disability as a result of a 2007 accident. At issue was was whether claimant was a displaced worker under the workers' compensation law. The court held that substantial evidence supported the conclusion that claimant was a displaced worker. Where, as here, claimant applied to at least a dozen jobs that were within his physical restrictions and were actually available, there was no basis to find that the job search was unreasonable. Similarly, if the burden shifted to the employer to establish that there were jobs available within claimant's limitations, a job survey would not automatically satisfy that burden. The employer must establish that the listed jobs actually were "available." If claimant applied for most of the same jobs listed in the employer's survey without success, then the survey alone was insufficient evidence to satisfy the employer's burden. Accordingly, because the Board found otherwise, the court reversed the judgment. View "Watson v. Wal-Mart Associates" on Justia Law

by
This case stemmed from plaintiff's complaint against DelDOT, alleging that DelDOT was grossly negligent in failing to observe its duty to maintain a safe roadway. On appeal, plaintiff argued that the trial court improperly dismissed the complaint because the court relied upon an affidavit extrinsic to the complaint without affording him an opportunity for discovery. The court held that because the Superior Court considered matters outside the pleadings, it erred by applying the Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss standard instead of converting the motion to, and treating it as, a motion for summary judgment. Therefore, the court reversed and remanded for the trial court to reconsider the motion under the Rule 56 summary judgment standard. View "Furman v. DE Dept. of Transportation" on Justia Law

by
Defendant was convicted of three counts of issuing a bad check greater than $1,000. On appeal, defendant contended that the trial judge erred by failing to grant a motion for a new trial after discovering that Juror No. 8 was a victim in a pending criminal case and by failing to conduct a sufficient post trial inquiry. The court held that when a juror serving on a criminal trial was an alleged victim of a crime and was contemporaneously represented by the Attorney General's office in the prosecution of the alleged perpetrator of the crime against the juror "victim," a mere inquiry by deposition into whether the jury knew the prosecutor or anyone in his office insufficiently probed the ability of that "juror/victim" to render a fair and objective verdict as a matter of law. Therefore, the court reversed and remanded. View "Knox v. State" on Justia Law