Justia Delaware Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A probation officer seized two guns—one a loaded 9mm Ruger, the other a .40 caliber Smith & Wesson—from a backpack recently carried by defendant Devin Coleman, a convicted felon and a person prohibited from possessing a firearm. The officer also seized two .40 caliber magazines—one from within the Smith & Wesson, the other loose in the backpack. It was later determined that one of the magazines bore the defendant’s fingerprint but no one knew whether the incriminating prints were on the magazine that was in the Smith & Wesson firearm or on the loose magazine. The defendant asked the trial court to instruct the jury that the officer’s failure to note, at the time of the seizure, which of the two magazines was in the weapon constitutes “missing evidence.” The trial court would not give the requested instruction and this refusal, defendant argued, constituted a due process violation warranting the reversal of his conviction for possession of a firearm by a person prohibited. The Delaware Supreme Court rejected defendant's argument, finding the evidence he claimed was "missing" at his trial was of dubious exculpatory value. "And to the extent it had any such value, Coleman has not explained how that would have been apparent to the probation officer upon his seizure of Coleman’s backpack and his discovery of the weapons and magazines in it." View "Coleman v. Delaware" on Justia Law

The Boardwalk Master Limited Partnership's (“MLP”) limited partnership agreement (the “Partnership Agreement”) disclaimed the general partner’s fiduciary duties, and included a conclusive presumption of good faith when relying on advice of counsel. At issue in this appeal was whether Boardwalk’s general partner properly exercised a call right to take the Boardwalk MLP private. Under the Partnership Agreement, the general partner could exercise a call right for the public units if it received an opinion of counsel acceptable to the general partner that a change in FERC regulations “has or will reasonably likely in the future have a material adverse effect on the maximum applicable rate that can be charged to customers.” The Boardwalk MLP general partner received an opinion of counsel from Baker Botts that a change in FERC policy met the call right condition. Skadden advised that: (1) it would be reasonable for the sole member, an entity in the Boardwalk MLP structure, to determine the acceptability of the opinion of counsel for the general partner; and (2) it would be reasonable for the sole member, on behalf of the general partner, to accept the Baker Botts Opinion. The sole member followed Skadden’s advice and caused the Boardwalk MLP general partner to exercise the call right and to acquire all the public units through a formula in the Partnership Agreement. The Boardwalk MLP public unitholders filed suit and claimed that the general partner improperly exercised the call right. In a post-trial opinion, the Delaware Court of Chancery concluded the general partner improperly exercised the call right because the Baker Botts Opinion had not been issued in good faith; the wrong entity in the MLP business structure determined the acceptability of the opinion; and the general partner was not exculpated from damages under the Partnership Agreement. After its review, the Delaware Supreme Court agreed with the Boardwalk entities that: (1) the sole member was the correct entity to determine the acceptability of the opinion of counsel; (2) that the sole member, as the ultimate decisionmaker who caused the general partner to exercise the call right, reasonably relied on Skadden’s opinion, and that the sole member and the general partner were therefore conclusively presumed to have acted in good faith in exercising the call right. Thus, the general partner and others were exculpated from damages under the Partnership Agreement. The Court of Chancery’s judgment was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "Boardwalk Pipeline v. Bandera Master Fund LP" on Justia Law

In 2022, Delaware Governor John Carney, Jr. signed into law two pieces of legislation affecting how Delaware citizens register to vote and cast their ballots. Under one bill, the "Same-Day Registration Statute," the deadline for registering to vote in any presidential primary, primary, special, and general election was changed from the fourth Saturday before the date of the election to the day of the election. Under the other bill, the General Assembly enacted and the Governor approved the addition of a chapter entitled “Voting by mail ballot” to Title 15 of the Delaware Code, which contained the statutes governing elections in Delaware. The "Vote-by-Mail Statute," applied to non-presidential primary, special, and general elections, and authorized all Delaware voters to cast their ballots by mail whether or not they were able to appear at a polling place. On the very day the Governor approved the bills, two lawsuits were filed challenging the constitutionality of both enactments under various sections of Article V of the Delaware Constitution. The Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief in the Court of Chancery, contending that the Same-Day Registration Statute conflicted with Section 4, while the Vote-by-Mail Statute ran afoul of Section 4A. The Delaware Supreme Court entered an order announcing its unanimous conclusion that neither of the newly enacted laws passed muster under the Delaware Constitution. Because of the press of time, the Court was unable then to publish a full opinion explaining the reasons underpinning that conclusion; this opinion explained the Court's reasoning. View "Albence v. Higgin" on Justia Law

A Delaware superior court held that Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants, two doctors who started a laboratory testing enterprise known as Bako Diagnostics (“Bako”), breached certain restrictive covenants when they left Bako to form a new, competing laboratory enterprise. Despite fee-shifting provisions in certain of the contracts, the trial court declined to award attorneys’ fees. The Delaware Supreme Court agreed with the superior court’s determinations that the two doctors breached certain of the restrictive covenants. But because it appeared that the superior court may have misapplied the formula that both sides employed for calculating damages, the Court remanded the case for the trial court to clarify how it derived its damages award and for any needed revisions. Further, the Supreme Court disagreed that no attorneys’ fees were warranted under certain of the contracts. View "Bako Pathology LP v. Bakotic" on Justia Law

A Delaware superior court affirmed an Industrial Accident Board (the “IAB” or “Board”) decision denying Appellant Joseph Wilson’s (“Wilson”) petition seeking payment for a cervical spine surgery. The parties agreed the treatment Wilson received was reasonable and necessary. Wilson was injured in a work-related accident on August 1, 2002 while working for Appellee Gingerich Concrete and Masonry (“Employer”). Sometime after the accident, Wilson started treatment with Dr. Bikash Bose (“Dr. Bose”), a certified Delaware workers’ compensation healthcare provider. Wilson’s injury necessitated two related cervical surgeries. The first surgery was performed while Dr. Bose was certified under the Delaware workers’ compensation system (the “Delaware Certification”) according to the requirements set forth in the Act. Employer’s carrier paid the bills related to Wilson’s first surgery. But Wilson’s first surgery proved unsuccessful, and Dr. Bose recommended a second surgery. During the time between Wilson’s first surgery and his second surgery, Dr. Bose’s Delaware Certification lapsed, and he did not seek re-certification for nineteen months. The issue presented was whether the second surgery was compensable given that the treating physician’s certification under the Delaware Workers’ Compensation Act (the “Act”) had lapsed by the time of treatment. If the treatment was not compensable, as the IAB and superior court held, then Wilson asked the Delaware Supreme Court to anticipatorily resolve the question of whether he could be liable for the bill even though no one asserted such a claim. The Supreme Court concluded Dr. Bose’s lapse rendered him uncertified, and, thus, the disputed bills were not compensable under 19 Del. C. § 2322D. View "Wilson v. Gingerich Concrete & Masonry" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant, Ocean Bay Mart, Inc. (“Ocean Bay”), owned a 7.71- acre parcel of real property in the City of Rehoboth Beach (“the City”). In June 2015, Ocean Bay submitted a Site Plan to the City proposing to develop the property into 63 residential condominium units. Under the plan, the 7.71 acres would remain a single, undivided parcel. The development would be known as “Beach Walk.” The submission of the Site Plan set into motion a chain of events over whether Beach Walk could be approved as a single, undivided parcel or whether the project had to be subdivided into individual lots corresponding to the residential units. The events included a decision by the City’s Building Inspector that the project could not be approved as a single, undivided parcel; a decision by the City’s Board of Adjustment overruling the Building Inspector’s decision; a decision by the City’s Planning Commission, rendered after the Board of Adjustment’s decision, that the Site Plan could not be considered unless it was resubmitted as a major subdivision application; a decision by the City Commissioners upholding the Planning Commission; an appeal of the Commissioners’ decision to the Superior Court, which reversed the Commissioners; and the City’s adoption of three amendments to its zoning code. Ocean Bay filed this action with the Delaware Court of Chancery, alleging that it had a vested right to have its Site Plan approved substantially in the form submitted without going through major subdivision approval, and that the City was equitably estopped from enforcing the zoning code amendments against Beach Walk. After a trial, the Court of Chancery ruled that Ocean Bay did not have a vested right to develop Beach Walk as laid out on the Site Plan and the City was not equitably estopped from enforcing its new zoning amendments. Ocean Bay appealed, but finding no reversible error, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed. View "Ocean Bay Mart, Inc. v. The City of Rehoboth Beach Delaware" on Justia Law

At issue in this appeal was a breach-of-contract dispute involving a stock purchase agreement for the sale of all the shares of stock of International Specialty Products Inc. (“International Specialty”). The selling shareholders were nine trusts and RFH Investment Holdings LLC (the “Heyman Parties”). The purchaser was Appellee Ashland Inc., a leading global specialty chemical company. International Specialty had two wholly owned subsidiaries that went with the sale, Appellee ISP Environmental Services Inc. and Appellee Chemco LLC (“Chemco”). ISP Environmental owned a property known as the Linden property, which for years had been home to chemical manufacturing operations and had an extensive environmental history. As part of the transaction, the parties agreed that the Heyman Parties would keep the Linden property. At the time of closing on the Stock Purchase Agreement, ISP Environmental caused the Linden property to be transferred to Appellant Linden Property Holdings LLC, the Heyman Parties’ designated entity for that purpose. A dispute arose between the parties as to who was responsible for the Linden property’s pre-closing, environmental liabilities. The parties agreed the Heyman Parties assumed responsibility in the agreement for the environmental contamination on the property itself. They disagreed as to who was responsible for environmental contamination to areas that were not part of the Linden property but were contaminated because of the activities on the Linden property. Ashland claimed that under the agreement, the Heyman Parties were responsible for all of the liabilities. The Heyman Parties claimed they never assumed any liability in the agreement for the off-site liabilities. The Superior Court agreed with Ashland and found that the Heyman Parties assumed responsibility in the agreement for the Linden property’s off-site environmental liabilities. The Delaware Supreme Court concluded, however, that under the unambiguous language of the agreement, the Heyman Parties assumed liability only for the Linden property’s on-site environmental liabilities, and assumed no liability for the property’s off-site liabilities. View "The Samuel J. Heyman 1981 Continuing Trust for Lazarus S. Heyman v. Ashland LLC" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was whether distributions from a Delaware statutory trust to beneficial owners were subject to garnishment by a creditor. The beneficial owners argued Delaware law prohibited garnishment of the distributions because they were trust property. They also argued that Delaware law prohibited garnishment of the distributions because the trust was a spendthrift trust. The creditor contended the appeal was moot because the trust converted to a partnership. As to the merits, the creditor contended the distributions were personal property subject to garnishment, not trust property. They further argued the beneficial owners failed to argue below that the trust was a spendthrift trust; thus, they were barred from raising that argument on appeal.Having reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, the Delaware Supreme Court held: (1) the appeal was not moot; (2) the trust distributions were personal property subject to garnishment; and (3) the appellants waived the argument that the trust at issue was a spendthrift trust. Thus, the judgment of the Superior Court was affirmed. View "Protech Minerals, Inc. v. Dugout Team, LLC" on Justia Law

The issue this appeal presented for the Delaware Supreme Court’s review asked for a determination of whether premiums paid on insurance policies declared void ab initio for lack of an insurable interest should be returned. Geronta Funding argued Delaware law required the automatic return of all premiums paid on the void policy. Brighthouse Life Insurance Company argued a party must prove entitlement to restitution. The trial court agreed with Brighthouse and relied on the Restatement (Second) of Contracts to determine whether Geronta was entitled to restitution. Specifically, the court held that Geronta could obtain restitution if it could prove excusable ignorance or that it was not equally at fault. Applying this test, the court ruled that Geronta was only entitled to the return of the premiums it paid after alerting Brighthouse to the void nature of the policy at issue. Geronta appealed this ruling, arguing that the court erred when it adopted the Restatement instead of automatically returning the premiums, erred in its actual application of the Restatement, even assuming that is the proper test, and erred by precluding certain testimony from Geronta witnesses. Because this was a matter of first impression, the Supreme Court adopted restitution under a fault-based analysis as framed by the Restatement as the test to determine whether premiums should be returned when a party presents a viable legal theory, such as unjust enrichment, and seeks the return of paid premiums as a remedy. The Court held, however, that despite applying the Restatement, the Superior Court’s application of the Restatement failed to account for the relevant questions encompassed by that approach. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s holdings regarding entitlement to premiums and remanded for further consideration, but found no fault in the Superior Court preclusion of certain testimony from Geronta’s witnesses. View "Geronta Funding v. Brighthouse Life Insurance Company" on Justia Law

In 2021, appellant Javon Pollard was convicted of numerous drug-related charges. Pollard appealed, arguing that the Superior Court committed plain error by not sua sponte suppressing evidence obtained during an allegedly illegal search of his vehicle in violation of his constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 6 of the Delaware Constitution. To the Delaware Supreme Court, the State urged the Supreme Court not to consider Pollard’s appeal because he failed to properly raise this argument below. The State further argued that Pollard’s challenges also failed because there was sufficient probable cause to justify the search. The Supreme Court agreed Pollard did not fairly raise the argument below. Regardless, Pollard also lost on the merits because the search did not violate either the United States or Delaware Constitutions. View "Pollard v. Delaware" on Justia Law