Justia Delaware Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2010, BLGH entered into an agreement with enXco to sell BLGH's renewable energy business, Beacon, to enXco. The Unit Purchase Agreement that governed the sale of Beacon (UPA) called for a purchase price of $12 million, plus a "bonus payment" to BLGH if certain conditions were met. The sale of Beacon took place and BLGH was paid $12 million. A dispute arose, however, over whether BLGH was entitled to the additional bonus payment. enXco claimed that no bonus payment was legally due. BLGH responded by filing a Superior Court action against enXco for breach of contract. The Superior Court granted summary judgment to enXco, holding that no bonus payment was owed to BLGH under the UPA. The court reversed and held that the Superior Court erred as a matter of law in granting summary judgment to enXco where the transaction "outlined" in the letter of intent met the requirements of Section 1.7 of the UPA, triggering BLGH's right to a bonus payment, and nothing more was required by the UPA for BLGH to become legally entitled to the bonus payment. View "BLGH Holdings LLC v. Enxco LFG Holding, LLC" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from her convictions for Assault Second Degree, Possession of a Deadly Weapon During Commission of a Felony, and Possession of a Deadly Weapon by a Person Prohibited. The court held that the superior court did not err in giving the jury flight instructions where the instructions were appropriate in light of the facts of the case and that the instruction was not a comment on the evidence in violation of Article IV, Section 19 of the Delaware Constitution. The court also held that the superior court did not err by refusing to instruct the jury on Assault Third Degree. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Robertson v. State" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed this action against defendants claiming that defendants breached a limited partnership agreement under which another limited partnership was formed to seek out, acquire, and develop oil and gas producing properties through the use of three-dimensional seismic technology. At issue was whether the Court of Chancery abused its discretion in dismissing plaintiff's amended complaint for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff contended, that notwithstanding more than two years of inactivity, it established good cause for its failure to prosecute - change of counsel and settlement negotiations. The trial court found that plaintiff's showing was insufficient to overcome the long delay and the court found no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Solow v. Aspect Resources, LLC, et al." on Justia Law

Wife appealed from a Family Court final judgment in favor of Husband, arising from Husband's Petition to Modify Alimony and the Wife's Motion for Specific Performance and Rule to Show Cause. On appeal, Wife contended that the Family Court erred when it reformed the parties' Marital Property Settlement Agreement to provide that alimony payments would terminate upon the Wife's cohabitation. The court held that the Family Court properly held that the Agreement was unconscionable and subject to reformation where the record supported the Family Court's factual findings of overreaching and unfairness. View "Stewart v. Stewart" on Justia Law

Respondent filed an appeal from the Family Court's final judgment regarding attorney's fees; its order dividing the marital property; and its order granting the motion of petitioner to rescind the parties' separation agreement. The court affirmed the Family Court's decision to rescind the separation agreement where that court found the terms of the separation were unfair and that respondent exerted undue influence in getting petitioner to sign it. The court concluded that the Family Court's decision to divide the marital assets 55%/45% in favor of petitioner and dividing the marital debts 45%/55% in petitioner's favor must be affirmed. Finally, the court concluded that the Family Court's decision to award attorney's fees to petitioner must also be affirmed. View "Hughes v. Peterson" on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty on multiple counts of robbery, conspiracy, and various possession offenses. Defendant appealed from the denial of his untimely motion to suppress, contending that the Superior Court abused its discretion by not permitting him to move to suppress, out of time, his incriminating statement to a police officer on grounds that he was arrested without probable cause and that his incriminating statement was involuntary. The court held that defendant failed to prove that exceptional circumstances prevented him from filing a timely motion to suppress. Defendant was not precluded from seeking relief pursuant to a Rule 61 motion for post-conviction relief. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Davis v. State" on Justia Law

Series C-1 preferred shareholders, claiming that the forced conversion of their shares was unlawful, sued Omneon in the Superior Court for breach of contract. Those shareholders, as plaintiffs, claimed that, because the conversion of their preferred shares was integral to Harmonic's acquisition of Omneon, the conversion was part of a "Liquidation Event" under Omneon's certificate of incorporation, that entitled the shareholders to the liquidation "preference" payable for their shares. The Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of Omneon, holding that under the plain language of Omneon's certificate of incorporation, only one series of preferred stock - the Series A-2.2 - was legally entitled to a liquidation preference payout. The shareholders were not entitled to a liquidation payout because the Series C-1 preferred shares had been validly converted into common stock before the Omneon-Orinda merger took place. The court agreed and concluded that the conversion was not part of a "Liquidation Event" as defined by Omneon's charter. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Berkeley VI C.V., et al. v. Omneon, Inc." on Justia Law

The State indicted defendant on four counts: possession of a deadly weapon by a person prohibited, carrying a concealed deadly weapon, receiving a stolen firearm, and criminal impersonation. Defendant waived his right to a jury trial and the trial judge found defendant guilty of all the offenses except receiving a stolen firearm. Defendant appealed, contending that the trial judge improperly refused to suppress the gun because an illegitimate search resulted in its seizure. The court affirmed the judgment of the trial judge where defendant gave the officer an improbable name and address, and therefore the officer had the power to arrest him and conduct a search incident to arrest. View "Stafford v. State" on Justia Law