Justia Delaware Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

Defendant was convicted of robbery first degree and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (PFDCF) for robbing Barbara Santana at gunpoint. At defendant's jury trial, defendant's counsel proffered evidence of a different bank robbery (Artisans' Robbery) that recently had occurred across the street from the bank were Santana was robbed. Counsel called the man who had pled guilty to that crime, Joseph Blevins, as a witness in defendant's trial in an attempt to create a reasonable doubt that defendant had robbed Santana. At issue was whether the trial judge abused his discretion by precluding defendant's proffer of exculpatory evidence to establish a reasonable doubt that someone else could have committed the crime charged. The court held that the exculpatory evidence could have been admitted where defense counsel could have presented the jury with the facts of the Artisans' Robbery and photographs of Blevins or where defense counsel could have presented the jury with the facts of the Artisans' Robbery and then have Blevins identified in court as an exhibit to avoid the concern that Blevins might invoke his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself. The court held that if the trial judge had employed either of those methods, the probative value of the relevant evidence would not have been substantially outweighed by the dangers of confusion of the issues or misleading the jury. Accordingly, the court held that the evidence was admissible and reversed and remanded for a new trial. View "Watkins v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence from convictions of two counts of assault in the second degree, two counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (PFDCF), and one count of reckless endangering in the first degree. At issue was whether the trial court erred by imposing a more severe sentence than recommended under the relevant Sentencing Accountability Commission (SENTAC) Benchbook guidelines. The court held that the record reflected that defendant was fully aware that the Superior Court was not bound by the state's sentence recommendations, and that he had been twice advised that by pleading guilty, he faced a maximum sentence of seventy-one years of incarceration. The court also held that, where the sentencing judge imposed a harsher sentence than those recommended by the SENTAC Benchbook guidelines, the sentences were neither illegal or an abuse of discretion. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court. View "Wynn v. State" on Justia Law

Appellants in this derivative action, who are shareholders of Primedia, Inc., appealed the Court of Chancery's decision granting the Primedia Special Litigation Committee's ("SLC") Motion to Dismiss claims arising out of a series of alleged violations of fiduciary duty by defendants. As a preliminary matter, the court invoked the exception to mootness doctrine in this case because it was a matter of public importance that was capable of repetition yet could evade review where other litigants have raised the Brophy v. Cities Co. issue in actions now pending before the Court of Chancery. The court held that Brophy did not require an element of harm to the corporation before disgorgement was an available remedy and to the extent Pfeiffer v. Toll conflicted with this holding, it was wrong. In Brophy, the court relied on the principles of restitution and equity and as the Brophy court recognized, it was inequitable to permit the fiduciary to profit from using confidential corporate information. The court also held that the Vice Chancellor's analysis of the SLC's Motion to Dismiss under Zapata Corp. v. Maldonado's second prong could not be affirmed in the shadow of Pfeiffer's incorrect holding. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Chancery was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Kahn, et al. v. Kolberg Kravis Roberts & Co., L.P., et al." on Justia Law

Appellant appealed from Family Court orders granting Division of Family Services ("DFS") petitions for the termination of her parental rights in her four minor children. At issue was whether the Family Court erroneously denied her Family Court Civil 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, appellant waived her right to contest the dismissal. The court also held that even if appellant had stood on her motion, the Family Court had considerable discretion to deny it and therefore, the Family Court did not abuse its discretion. The court further held that the Family Court did consider 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. Division of Family Services, et al." on Justia Law

Appellant appealed a termination decision by appellees (collectively, "Panel") after the Panel unanimously voted at a public hearing to terminate appellant's employment as Chief of Police. At issue was whether the Superior Court erred in holding that the votes of the remaining Panel members could cure the Panel's unlawful failure to recuse a biased member; whether the Superior Court erred in affirming the Panel's failure to provide appellant with the protections of Chapter 48 of the Police Department's rules and Regulations; and whether the Superior Court erred in concluding that the Panel provided appellant with sufficient notice of the grounds for the charges against him at the public hearing. The court held that appellant's testimony established a prima facie case of bias by a Councilman and the Panel's failure to recuse him could not be cured by votes of the remaining Panel members. Therefore, appellant's due process rights were violated. The court also held that because this ground for reversal was independently sufficient, the court declined to address appellant's other arguments. Accordingly, the judgment of the Superior Court was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Sullivan v. Mayor & Council of The Town of Elsmere" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of conspiracy in the second degree where the jury found that defendant and his co-conspirator committed an overt act in pursuance of the conspiracy. At issue was whether the trial judge committed plain error by not, sua sponte, giving a specific unanimity instruction requiring the jury to determine unanimously which particular overt act was committed. The court held that, in light of conflicting authorities on the issue, defendant had not shown that the trial judge committed plain error in failing to give the instruction because the error complained of was not so clearly prejudicial to his substantial rights as to jeopardize the fairness and integrity of the trial process. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed. View "Dougherty v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from a final judgment that was entered in favor of plaintiffs, as subrogees of Harbor Health Care and Rehabilitation Center, Inc. (collectively, "Harbor Health"). At issue was whether the superior court erred as a matter of law in denying his motion for summary judgment and renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, both based upon the statute of limitations. Also at issue was whether the superior court erred as a matter of law in denying defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law following the conclusion of plaintiffs' case-in-chief because plaintiffs failed to establish the element of causation in their claim against him. The court held that Harbor Health's claim for contribution was timely filed where a three-year statute of limitations separately governed contribution claims. The court also held that there was sufficient record evidence to support the jury's determination that the failure to have corrective surgery performed for the patient at issue was proximately caused by defendant's negligent conduct. Accordingly, the judgment of the superior court was affirmed.

The State of Delaware ("State") filed an habitual driving offender petition in the Court of Common Pleas against respondent under Chapter 28 of Title 21 of the Delaware Vehicle Code. Hours after declaring respondent an habitual offender, the Court of Common Pleas, sua sponte, vacated its earlier judgment, holding that the State's exercise of prosecutorial discretion in respondent's case was inconsistent with the State's prosecution of other habitual driving offender petitions heard that same day. At issue was whether the Court of Common Pleas erred in vacating its earlier order declaring respondent an habitual driving offender. The court held that the Court of Common Pleas had no legal basis to conclude that respondent was not an habitual driving offender where the statutory requirements for habitual driving offender status had all been established. The court also held that the Court of Common Pleas erred in finding the State's refusal to offer a continuance to respondent constituted a legal "wrong" where the state was not required to request a continuance in each and every habitual driving offender prosecution. The court further held that the Court of Common Pleas erroneously relied on Court of Common Pleas Civil Rules 60(b)(3) and 60(b)(6) as a basis to remedy the State's "misrepresentations." The court finally held that nothing in Court of Common Pleas Civil Rule 11 suggested that the trial court could vacate an earlier order, thereby resulting in a dismissal of the proceeding, as sanction for a party's alleged violation of that rule.

Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and appealed a superior court judge's denial of his second motion for postconviction relief. At issue was whether the sidebar commentary defendant's counsel made to the trial judge during a pretrial hearing created an unlawful "appearance of impropriety," violated defendant's due process rights, and denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The court held that the relevant circumstances did not disclose any "appearance of impropriety" sufficient to reverse the judgment and grant a new penalty phase where the court did not find an unacceptable risk that a reasonable observer would believe that bias influenced the trial judge. The court also held that the superior court judge did not violate defendant's due process rights where there was no evidence proving reliance on counsel's remarks. The court further held that defendant was not denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel where there was no "complete" failure of counsel and defendant failed to establish actual prejudice sufficient to warrant relief. Accordingly, the judgment of the superior court was affirmed.