Justia Delaware Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted of crimes related to the attempted murder of the victim on January 26, 2006, and the subsequent murder of the victim on April 2, 2007. On appeal, defendant contended that the trial court abused its discretion by denying defendant's motion to sever the trial of the attempted murder case from the murder case; that his right to a fair trial before an impartial jury was violated when the evidence presented at trial did not clearly and convincingly establish the State's proffered "other crime" evidence of motive, due to the unwillingness of a State witness to testify; and his due process rights were violated when the trial judge denied his motions to suppress two separate pretrial eyewitness identifications. The court held that defendant's arguments were without merit and therefore, affirmed the judgments of the Superior Court. View "Monroe v. State" on Justia Law

CML, a junior secured creditor of JetDirect, sued JetDirect's present and former officers directly and derivatively for breaching their fiduciary duties. The Vice Chancellor dismissed all four of CML's claims. The court affirmed the judgment because CML, as a JetDirector creditor, lacked standing to sue derivatively on JetDirect's behalf. View "CML V, LLC, et al. v. Bax, et al." on Justia Law

Central Mortgage Company (CMC) sued Morgan Stanley after mortgages for which CMC purchased servicing rights from Morgan Stanley began to fall delinquent during the early financial crisis of 2007. CMC subsequently appealed the dismissal of its breach of contract and implied covenant of good faith and fair dealings claims. The court held that the Vice Chancellor erroneously dismissed CMC's breach of contract claims on the basis of inadequate notice where CMC's pleadings regarding notice satisfied the minimal standards required at this early stage of litigation. The court also held that the Vice Chancellor erroneously dismissed CMC's implied covenant of good faith and fair dealings claim where the claims were not duplicative. Accordingly, the court reversed the Vice Chancellor's judgment dismissing all three of CMC's claims and remanded for further proceedings. View "Central Mortgage Co. v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC" on Justia Law

Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. and the Board of Trade of the City of New York, Inc. (collectively, defendants), merged in 2007. Plaintiff was a member of the Board of Trade before the merger and the merger agreement required that if a member, including plaintiff, wished to continue in the newly merged enterprise, the member had to submit an Election Form specifying that preference by a stated deadline. Plaintiff did not receive the Election Form until after the deadline had passed and thereafter, defendants learned that many members, including plaintiff, had failed to submit the Election Form. Defendants waived the deadline and then, in an ad hoc manner and without notice to any member, imposed a new deadline. Defendants subsequently decided that plaintiff's Form was untimely and, of all the post-deadline-filled Forms, plaintiff's Form was the only one that defendants deemed untimely and refused to honor. Thereafter, plaintiff filed an action alleging breach of contract and the Court of Chancery ruled in favor of defendants. The court concluded, however, that defendants waived the initial deadline and also failed to retract that waiver by providing reasonable notice of their new deadline. Because the retraction of the waiver was invalid as a matter of law, plaintiff's Election Form was timely. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Chancery was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "Amirsaleh v. Bd of Trade of the City of New York Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Linda Thompson appealed from a Superior Court judgment reversing the determination of the Unemployment Appeals Board (UIAB) that good cause existed for Thompson's voluntary resignation and granting her unemployment benefits. Thompson contended that good cause existed for voluntarily terminating her employment, that she exhausted her administrative remedies, and that substantial evidence in the record supported the UIAB's decision. The court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court and held that substantial evidence did not support the UIAB's decision and the UIAB erred as a matter of law by concluding that Thompson was entitled to benefits pursuant to 19 Del. C. 3314(1). View "Thompson & UIAB v. Christiana Care Health System" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from a Family Court order finding him delinquent of, and sentencing him for, the offenses of Assault in the First Degree, Reckless Endangering in the First Degree, and Offensive Touching. On appeal, defendant challenged two of the Family Court's evidentiary rulings and claimed that there was insufficient evidence to support the court's adjudication of delinquency on all three charges. The court held that there was no plain error and that there was sufficient evidence to support the Family Court's finding of delinquency on all three charges. The court also held that the trial judge properly exercised his discretion in not excluding the state's rebuttal evidence. The court further held that the Family Court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's request to admit evidence of the victim's two convictions because there was no basis to admit that evidence as probative of defendant's claim of self-defense. Therefore, the judgments of the Family Court were affirmed. View "Wright v. State" on Justia Law

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