Justia Delaware Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In Delaware, a father challenged the termination of his parental rights over his youngest child, J.M., who was born in November 2021. The mother, V.H., passed away a few weeks after giving birth, leaving the father, Jack Mitchell, to care for J.M. and his two older siblings. Due to various circumstances including Mitchell's brief incarceration and struggles with housing and employment, J.M. was placed in the guardianship of Rachel and Joshua Thayer, who were also the petitioners in the termination of parental rights case. The Thayers filed for termination of Mitchell's parental rights six months after assuming guardianship, asserting that Mitchell had intentionally abandoned J.M. The Family Court of the State of Delaware granted the petition, finding that the Thayers had proven by clear and convincing evidence that Mitchell had intentionally abandoned J.M. and that it was in the child's best interest for his parental rights to be terminated.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware found the evidence insufficient to support the Family Court's conclusion that Mitchell intentionally abandoned J.M. The Supreme Court noted situations where Mitchell expressed a desire and willingness to assume legal and physical custody of J.M., and evidence that showed Mitchell's improvements in his personal circumstances, such as creating his own business, moving into a house, and caring for his other children. Consequently, it determined that the Family Court erred in its decision to terminate Mitchell's parental rights. The Supreme Court reversed the Family Court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Mitchell v. Thayer" on Justia Law

In the case before the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware, Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P., a global financial services company, appealed a decision by the Court of Chancery. The case involved the company's contractual provisions that allowed it to withhold distributions otherwise owed to a partner who leaves the partnership and then competes with the partnership. The plaintiffs were six former partners who had their distributions, ranging from under $100,000 to over $5 million, withheld after they left Cantor Fitzgerald and joined competing businesses.The lower court held that these "forfeiture for competition" provisions were unenforceable, ruling they were unreasonable restraints on trade. However, the Supreme Court reversed this decision. It ruled that, under Delaware law, courts should enforce such agreements absent unconscionability, bad faith, or other extraordinary circumstances. The court emphasized the importance of freedom of contract, particularly in the context of sophisticated parties entering into a limited partnership agreement. It argued that public policy considerations favored enforcing the agreement, particularly as the parties had voluntarily agreed to the terms. As such, it held that Cantor Fitzgerald was within its rights to withhold the distributions based on the plaintiffs' competitive activities. The case was remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion. View "Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P. v. Ainslie" on Justia Law

In 2022, Fox Corporation and Snap Inc. amended their corporate charters to exculpate their officers from damages liability for breaches of the duty of care. The amendments were authorized by recent Delaware legislation. The companies' Class A non-voting common stockholders claimed that these amendments deprived them of their power to sue officers for damages for duty of care violations and, thus, a separate class vote was required to approve the amendments. However, the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware affirmed the Court of Chancery's decision that a separate class vote was not required. The court held that the ability to sue directors or officers for duty of care violations was a general right of the stockholders, not a class-based power stated in the corporate charter. Therefore, it was not a "power, preference, or special right" of the Class A common stock under Section 242(b)(2) of the Delaware General Corporation Law, which requires a separate class stockholder vote to amend a corporate charter if the amendment would adversely affect the powers, preferences, or special rights of the shares of such class. The holding was based on long-standing precedent and the court's interpretation of related sections of the Delaware General Corporation Law. View "In re Fox Corporation/Snap Inc. Section 242 Litigation" on Justia Law

In 2019, Jose Terreros was left in charge of his girlfriend's children. Upon returning home, his girlfriend was informed by her four-year-old daughter that Terreros had sexually abused her. The girlfriend immediately asked Terreros to leave and called the police. She later discovered concerning web searches on Terreros's phone, which he had left behind, including queries about how long saliva and fingerprints remain on bodies and clothes, and whether police can detect if a child has been raped. Based on this, investigators obtained a warrant to search Terreros's phone. They searched his messages, messaging apps, photos, videos, internet search history, GPS coordinates, and incoming and outgoing calls without any date restrictions. On trial, Terreros was found guilty of Sexual Abuse of a Child and Dangerous Crime Against a Child, but not guilty of Rape First Degree. Terreros appealed his conviction, arguing that the warrant was overbroad and that the verdicts were inconsistent. The Supreme Court of the State of Delaware agreed with Terreros regarding the warrant, finding it to be a general warrant and thus unconstitutional. The court held that all evidence obtained from the phone should have been suppressed. The court also remanded the inconsistent verdicts issue back to the lower court for further consideration, as it had not been fully addressed by the State. The court reversed Terreros's convictions and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Terreros v. State" on Justia Law

In 2022, Fox Corporation and Snap Inc. amended their corporate charters to protect their officers from liability for duty of care violations, following recent legislation in Delaware. Class A non-voting common stockholders of both companies filed a lawsuit, claiming that a separate class vote was required for these amendments, as it deprived them of the power to sue officers for damages for duty of care violations. The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware ruled in favor of Fox and Snap, holding that the ability to sue corporate officers for damages was not a class-based power stated in the charters and thus separate Class A stockholder votes were not required. The Court of Chancery also noted that the amendments did not affect any peculiar attribute of the class of stock, and hence, did not necessitate a separate vote. The Supreme Court of the State of Delaware affirmed this decision, holding that the powers, preferences, or special rights of class shares in Section 242(b)(2) refers to those authorized for a class by Section 151(a) and expressed in the charter as required by Sections 102(a)(4) and 151(a). The ability to sue directors or officers for duty of care violations is an attribute of the Companies’ stock, but not a power, preference, or special right of the Class A common stock under Section 242(b)(2). View "In re Fox Corporation/Snap Inc. Section 242 Litigation" on Justia Law

In the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware, defendant Kwesi Hudson, who was convicted of first-degree kidnapping, first-degree robbery, second-degree rape, and other crimes, appealed on two grounds. First, he challenged the Superior Court's decision to deny his pre-trial motion to exclude the State’s expert testimony on DNA mixture interpretation and technology. He argued that the STRmix software used to process the DNA was not scientifically reliable. Second, he contended that the Superior Court erred in denying his motion to suppress cell-site location information collected from cell tower dumps via ten search warrants. He claimed that these warrants violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Article I, Section 6 of the Delaware Constitution, and Delaware statutory law. The Supreme Court of the State of Delaware found Hudson’s challenges to be without merit and affirmed his convictions and the decisions of the Superior Court. The court ruled that the DNA evidence was reliable and admissible, and that a Daubert hearing to test its admissibility was not necessary. Additionally, the court concluded that the cell tower warrants were constitutional under the Fourth Amendment, as they were sufficiently particular and based on probable cause. View "Hudson v. State" on Justia Law

In this case before the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware, the plaintiff, First State Orthopaedics, P.A., sought a declaration that a billing code used by the defendants (a group of insurance companies operating under the Liberty Mutual Group) to deny insurance coverage violated Delaware's workers' compensation law. The defendant companies had stopped using the challenged code six months before the plaintiff filed its complaint and none of the codes in their new billing system contained the same challenged language. The Superior Court held that the discontinuation of the code did not remove the plaintiff's standing to bring the case because the defendants might resume using the code in the future and because they had not "corrected" their response to 19 invoices for which they had previously denied coverage using the challenged code. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Delaware overturned the lower court's decision, ruling that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring the case because the defendants had stopped using the challenged code before the plaintiff filed its complaint, and therefore, the plaintiff's request for a declaration that the code violated workers' compensation law did not seek to address an actual or imminent injury. The court also ruled that the defendants' alleged failure to correct their responses to 19 invoices could not confer standing because the prospective relief that a declaratory judgment affords would not redress the injury caused by the statements already issued to the plaintiff's patients. View "Employers Insurance Company of Wasau v. First State Orthopaedics, P.A." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of the State of Delaware upheld a lower court's decision regarding a dispute between the Salt Meadows Homeowners Association (Salt Meadows) and Zonko Builders, Inc. (Zonko). Salt Meadows accused Zonko of faulty construction leading to water damage in the condominium complex built by Zonko. The Superior Court found Zonko liable but left the question of damages to a jury, which awarded Salt Meadows $11.3 million in general damages and $1.6 million for specific repair costs. However, the Superior Court later reduced the general damage award to $8.3 million, citing unsupported, speculative, and excessive damage claims. The court also granted Zonko's motion for judgment as a matter of law related to the specific repair costs, finding that Salt Meadows expanded its claims without sufficient evidence. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's decision, agreeing that Salt Meadows' damage claims were speculative and unsupported. The court also agreed with the lower court's calculation of pre-judgment interest from the date the damages were discovered, not from the date of Zonko's negligent construction. The court further affirmed the calculation of post-judgment interest from the date of the verdict, as agreed upon by both parties. View "Salt Meadows Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Zonko Builders, Inc." on Justia Law

In the case of the State of Delaware v. Taha El-Abbadi, El-Abbadi was convicted of Murder by Abuse or Neglect in the First Degree for causing the death of three-year-old Julian Cepeda. El-Abbadi appealed his conviction on the basis of two issues: the trial court's refusal to provide jury instructions for lesser-included offenses and the limitation on cross-examination and testimony regarding the victim's mother's past involvement with the Division of Family Services.The Supreme Court of Delaware upheld the conviction. The court found that the trial court did not err in refusing to provide jury instructions for the lesser-included offenses of Manslaughter and Criminally Negligent Homicide. The court reasoned that there was no evidence that would allow the jury to find El-Abbadi not guilty of the Murder by Abuse or Neglect charges and instead guilty of Manslaughter or Criminally Negligent Homicide.The court also found that the trial court did not err in limiting cross-examination and testimony regarding the victim's mother's past involvement with the Division of Family Services. The Supreme Court concluded that the exclusion of this testimony was not an abuse of discretion and did not constitute plain error. The court found that the mother's past involvement was distinct from the facts of the case and the witnesses were questioned about the delay in medical assistance, which was the key point the defense was trying to establish.The Supreme Court of Delaware, therefore, affirmed El-Abbadi’s conviction of Murder by Abuse or Neglect in the First Degree. View "El-Abbadi v. State" on Justia Law

A case involving Lebanon County Employees' Retirement Fund and Teamsters Local 443 Health Services & Insurance Plan, as plaintiffs-appellants, and Steven H. Collis, Richard W. Gochnauer, Lon R. Greenberg, Jane E. Henney, M.D., Kathleen W. Hyle, Michael J. Long, Henry W. McGee, Ornella Barra, D. Mark Durcan, and Chris Zimmerman, as defendants-appellees, was heard by the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. The plaintiffs, shareholders in AmerisourceBergen Corporation, brought a derivative complaint against the directors and officers of the Corporation alleging that they failed to adopt, implement, or oversee reasonable policies and practices to prevent the unlawful distribution of opioids. The plaintiffs claimed that this led to AmerisourceBergen incurring liability exceeding $6 billion in a 2021 global settlement related to the Company's role in the opioid epidemic. The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware initially dismissed the complaint, basing its decision on a separate federal court finding that AmerisourceBergen had complied with its anti-diversion obligations under the Controlled Substances Act. However, the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware reversed the Court of Chancery's dismissal of the complaint, ruling that the lower court had erred in considering the federal court's findings as it changed the date at which demand futility should be considered and violated the principles of judicial notice. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Lebanon County Employees' Retirement Fund v. Collis" on Justia Law