Justia Delaware Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Delaware Department of Finance served an administrative subpoena on AT&T Inc. to produce records relating to a financial audit. AT&T refused to produce all of the requested records. The Department responded by filing a complaint in the Court of Chancery to enforce the subpoena. AT&T defended by claiming, among other things, that the subpoena exceeded the Department’s authority and was overbroad. The Court of Chancery held that, although the Department validly issued the subpoena, AT&T “met its burden to show that the scope of the subpoena is so expansive that enforcement would constitute an abuse” of the court’s process. The court noted that it had offered the Department the opportunity to supplement the record to explain why the subpoena should be enforced as written, but the Department declined the invitation. The court therefore quashed the subpoena in its entirety. The Department appealed the court’s decision. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Chancery’s judgment. Recognizing that the procedural and substantive aspects of administrative subpoena enforcement were issues of first impression in Delaware, the Supreme Court adopted the procedures and substance followed by the federal courts in administrative subpoena enforcement proceedings. Because the Court announced new procedural and substantive standards governing administrative subpoenas, it allowed the Department to serve a new subpoena on AT&T that complied with the guidance in the Court’s opinion. View "Delaware Dept of Finance v. AT&T Inc." on Justia Law

Following a bench trial, A.J. McMullen was convicted of Murder in the First Degree and Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony (“PFDCF”). McMullen appealed his convictions, arguing the superior court improperly admitted cumulative statements from witnesses pursuant to 11 Del. C. 3507, and that the superior court’s verdict was supported by insufficient evidence identifying McMullen as the shooter who took the victim’s life. After review of the record, the Delaware Supreme Court found no merit in either of McMullen’s claims of error. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the superior court’s decisions and judgment of conviction. View "McMullen v. Delaware" on Justia Law

GXP Capital, LLC filed two lawsuits against defendants in different federal courts. GXP alleged defendants violated non-disclosure agreements by using confidential information to buy key assets at bargain prices from GXP’s parent company. Those cases were dismissed for lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction. GXP then filed a third suit in Delaware Superior Court, which stayed the case on forum non conveniens grounds to allow GXP to file the same case in California state court - a forum the court decided had a greater connection to the dispute and was more convenient for the parties. On appeal GXP argued: (1) the Superior Court did not apply the correct forum non conveniens analysis when Delaware was not the first-filed action, the prior-filed lawsuits have been dismissed, and no litigation was pending in another forum; and (2) defendants waived any inconvenience objections in Delaware under the forum selection clause in their non-disclosure agreements. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed, finding the trial court properly exercised its discretion in this case’s procedural posture to stay the Delaware case in lieu of dismissal when another forum with jurisdiction existed and that forum was the more convenient forum to resolve the dispute. “And certain of the defendants’ consent to non-exclusive jurisdiction in California did not waive their right to object to venue in other jurisdictions, including Delaware.” View "GXP Capital v. Argonaut Manufacturing Services, et al" on Justia Law

Appeals consolidated for the Delaware Supreme Court’s review centered on the Rent Increase Justification Act, which governed rent increases in manufactured home communities. The Rehoboth Bay Manufactured Home Community (the “Community”) was owned/managed by Hometown Rehoboth Bay, LLC (“Hometown”). The Appellant in Case No. 139, 2020 was Rehoboth Bay Homeowners’ Association (the “HOA”), the homeowners’ association. The Appellants in Case No. 296, 2020 were two individual tenants, John Iacona and Robert Weymouth. Hometown sought to raise the rents in both cases: in case No. 296, 2020, rents would be raised an amount in excess of the Consumer Price Index for this area (the “CPI-U”), for the calendar year 2017; in case No. 139, 2020, for the calendar year 2018. Under the Act, proposed rent increases that exceed the CPI-U must be justified by certain factors. Separate arbitrators in both cases found that a Bulkhead Stabilization project performed by Hometown in phases over more than one year was a capital improvement or rehabilitation work, which, along with other capital improvements and other expenses, justified rent increases in excess of the CPI-U in both years. The Appellants claimed the Superior Court erred by affirming the arbitrators’ decisions that the Bulkhead Stabilization project was a “capital improvement or rehabilitation work” and not “ordinary repair, replacement, and maintenance.” They also claimed the Superior Court should have ruled that the Act did not permit Hometown to incorporate the capital improvement component of the rent increases into each lot’s base rent so as to carry those increases forward into ensuing years. The Delaware Supreme Court concluded the Superior Court’s rulings on the Bulkhead Stabilization project as a capital improvement or rehabilitation work was correct, however, the Act did not permit Hometown to incorporate the capital improvement component of the 2017 and 2018 rent increases into a lot’s base rent for succeeding years after recovering that lot’s full, proportionate share of those costs in those years. Therefore, the Superior Court’s judgment was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and the cases remanded for further proceedings. View "Rehoboth Bay Homeowners' Assoc, et al. v. Hometown Rehoboth Bay" on Justia Law

Appellant Jarreau Ayers was convicted on one count of Riot, two counts of Assault First Degree, four counts of Kidnapping First Degree, and one count of Conspiracy Second Degree for his participation in the February 1-2, 2017 inmate takeover of C Building at the James T. Vaughn Correctional Center (JTVCC). Ayers was found guilty of these offenses following a sixteen-day jury trial. On appeal, he contended the trial judge erred by not curing prosecutorial misconduct which occurred during the State’s rebuttal argument. At trial, Ayers claimed he was not a participant in the planning and execution of the takeover and was outside of C Building in the recreational yard when the takeover took place. The alleged improper argument came when the prosecutor said to the jury, “[y]ou spent the better part of the last month with Jarreau Ayers. What about Mr. Ayers suggests that . . . he’s not going to do exactly what he wants to do, which is to go inside and join in what’s happening there.” Ayers contended this part of the rebuttal argument was improper because it asked the jury to consider Ayers’ character in the courtroom as observed by the jury during the trial. Ayers objected to the prosecutor’s statement, but his objection was overruled. After review, the Delaware Supreme Court concluded that the trial judge’s failure to take steps to cure any alleged prejudice caused by the prosecutor's comment, if error, was harmless error. Accordingly, judgment was affirmed. View "Ayers v. Delaware" on Justia Law

Darth Heald was convicted by jury of unlawful sexual contact with a nine-year-old child and related charges. The alleged contact occurred when Heald brushed the back of his hand over the child’s clothed “private parts” during a “tag”-like game in which the player who is “it” chased the other players, who, if caught, are tickled rather than tagged. The prosecution’s case was centered more on what the child had reported to others than what she said on the witness stand. By contrast, the defense focused on testimony from other children who were present or nearby at the time of the alleged offense: accounts that contradicted the complainant’s version of important facts, and Heald’s testimony denying the essential elements of the charged offenses. This appeal addressed the Superior Court’s admission of evidence throughout the trial, sometimes over Heald’s objections and sometimes in the absence of any objection. The Delaware Supreme Court found no reversible error in the court’s evidentiary rulings. But the Court addressed Heald’s claim that improper comments in the prosecution’s opening statement and again in its closing argument cast doubt on the fairness and integrity of his trial. The Supreme Court found that because none of the challenged comments drew an objection from the defense, it was limited to reviewing them for plain error. The Court found several of the prosecutor's comments were indeed improper, and their cumulative effect compromised the fairness of Heald's trial. Consequently, judgment was reversed and the matter remanded for a new trial. View "Heald v. Delaware" on Justia Law

Appellant Jarreau Ayers was convicted on: one count of Riot; two counts of Assault First Degree; four counts of Kidnapping First Degree; and one count of Conspiracy Second Degree. These charges arose from his participation in the February 1-2, 2017 inmate takeover of C Building at the James T. Vaughn Correctional Center (JTVCC). Ayers was found guilty of these offenses following a sixteen-day jury trial. On appeal, he contended the trial judge erred by not curing prosecutorial misconduct which occurred during the State’s rebuttal argument. At trial, Ayers claimed that he was not a participant in the planning and execution of the takeover and was outside of C Building in the recreational yard when the takeover took place. The alleged improper argument came when the prosecutor said to the jury, “[y]ou spent the better part of the last month with Jarreau Ayers. What about Mr. Ayres suggests that . . . he’s not going to do exactly what he wants to do, which is to go inside and join in what’s happening there.” Ayers contended that this part of the rebuttal argument was improper because it asked the jury to consider Ayres’ character in the courtroom as observed by the jury during the trial. Ayers objected to the prosecutor’s statement, but his objection was overruled. After consideration of the record and the parties’ arguments, the Delaware Supreme Court concluded the trial judge’s failure to take steps to cure any alleged prejudice caused by the prosecutor’s comment, if error, was harmless error. Accordingly, judgment was affirmed. View "Ayers v. Delaware" on Justia Law

Defendant Naifece Houston was charged with drug offenses following a traffic stop, and moved to suppress evidence on various grounds, including that the arresting officers impermissibly extended the stop to allow time for a drug-sniffing dog to arrive. In his motion to suppress, defendant asked the superior court to hold a Daubert hearing so that he could contest the admissibility of testimony from one of the arresting officers that he could detect an odor at the scene emanating from the defendant’s car - a “chemically smell” that the officer associated with large amounts of cocaine. Because the officer’s testimony was based on his training and experience as a police officer, according to defendant, it was “expert in nature,” triggering the trial court’s gatekeeping function under Daubert and its progeny. The superior court disagreed, concluding that the officer’s testimony was not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge, but, rather, was lay opinion testimony admissible under Delaware Rule of Evidence 701. On that rationale, defendant appealed, arguing the superior court erred. And had defendant’s motion been granted, he contended the State would have been left with no evidence that he was guilty of the drug offenses with which he was charged. The Delaware Supreme Court concluded that both defendant and the State, and ultimately the Superior Court, mistakenly framed the issue in the proceedings below as hinging upon the admissibility of the officer’s testimony under the rules of evidence governing opinion testimony. "Thus, the true question before the superior court was whether the challenged testimony was sufficiently reliable to justify the officer’s suspicion that there was cocaine in the defendant’s car." The Supreme Court concluded the trial court’s admission of the officer’s testimony was not an abuse of discretion. Thus, judgment was affirmed. View "Houston v. Delaware" on Justia Law

Appellant Wild Meadows MHC, LLC challenged the Superior Court’s dismissal of its petition for a writ of prohibition. The Wild Meadows manufactured home community (the “Community”) owned by Appellant, was located in Dover, Delaware. The Community was governed by the Manufactured Home Owners and Community Owners Act and its subsection commonly known as the Rent Justification Act (the “Act”). Appellee Intervenor/Respondent Wild Meadows Homeowners’ Association (the “HOA”) represented these homeowners. Multiple homeowners rejected Wild Meadows’ rent increase and, through the HOA, filed a petition with the Delaware Manufactured Home Relocation Authority (the “Authority”). The Authority appointed Appellee David J. Weidman, Esquire as the arbitrator under the Act. Before the scheduled arbitration, the HOA requested financial information from Wild Meadows relating to the Community’s recent revenue and costs. Wild Meadows refused to provide this information. The HOA moved to compel discovery and a motion for summary judgment with Weidman. In his initial decision, Weidman granted discovery of any financial documents that Wild Meadows intended to rely upon at arbitration, but he denied the HOA’s motion to compel the production of additional financial documents from Wild Meadows. Determining he could compel discover, Weidman ordered Wild Meadows to submit a proposed confidentiality agreement, and ordered the HOA to submit any comments on the draft. After taking both parties' comments into consideration, Weidman issued a final confidentiality agreement, rejecting many of the changes the HOA proposed. Wild Meadows refused to sign the confidentiality agreement and filed the underlying application for a writ of prohibition in the Superior Court. Wild Meadows argued to the Delaware Supreme Court that the Superior Court erroneously held that the arbitrator appointed under Delaware’s Rent Justification Act had authority to compel discovery and impose a confidentiality agreement upon parties concerning discovery material. Finding no reversible error in the Superior Court's judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Wild Meadows MHC, LLC v. Weidman" on Justia Law

In 2018, an enforcement officer working for the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control pulled over a truck hauling municipal solid waste from the Pine Tree Corners Transfer Station. The truck’s owner-operator, Contractors Hauling, LLC, did not have a valid permit to transport solid waste, violating Delaware law. The Department subsequently determined that on numerous occasions between September 2017 and July 2018, vehicles belonging to Contractors Hauling transported solid waste from the Pine Tree Station without a valid permit. The Delaware Solid Waste Authority operated the Pine Tree Station subject to a Department-issued permit. In 2017, the Authority transferred operations of the station to a subcontractor, Greggo & Ferrera, Inc. (“G&F”). Later that year - and apparently without the Authority’s knowledge - G&F began using vehicles owned and operated by its affiliate entity, Contractors Hauling, to transport waste from the transfer station to waste disposal facilities. The Department determined that each of the three entities - the Authority, G&F, and Contractors Hauling - violated various requirements related to solid waste, and the Department assessed civil penalties and costs. Each entity filed a timely appeal with the Environmental Appeals Board. The Board reversed the Department’s assessments of fines and penalties. The Department appealed to the Superior Court. The court held: (1) the Department had the authority to impose the permit condition, but it was unconstitutionally vague; (2) the Authority was strictly liable for failing to provide a complete list of transporters; (3) the Board erred by setting aside the penalties assessed against G&F and Contractors Hauling; and (4) the Secretary’s cost assessments were not before the Board. Each of the parties appealed the Superior Court’s decision. After review, the Delaware Supreme Court held: (1) the Superior Court and the Board erred by holding that the permit condition was unlawful; (2) the Superior Court properly held that the Authority was strictly liable for failing to provide a complete list of transporters; (3) the Superior Court erred by overturning the Board’s determination that no penalty should have been assessed against G&F and Contractors Hauling; and (4) the Superior Court properly held that the Secretary’s ability to recover costs was not before the Board. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case back to the Superior Court for further proceedings. View "Delaware Solid Waste Authority v. Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control" on Justia Law