[PDF] Top 20 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

... the Superior Court found a defendant to be subject to Delaware personal ...the Superior Court examined whether a Connecticut defendant that solicited business from a Delaware ... See full document

... the Delaware Court of Chancery. Framed under Superior Court Civil Rule 12(b)(6), Defendant claims Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for which relief can be ... See full document

... in Delaware – ...to Delaware courts – specifically as plaintiffs in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the “Delaware District Court”) – in order to ... See full document

... D ISCUSSION A. Absolute Judicial Immunity As long recognized, judicial immunity exists “as a device for discouraging collateral attacks … thereby helping to establish appellate procedures as the standard system for ... See full document

... The Court has statutorily conferred jurisdiction over appeals from administrative agencies, including appeals from the ...The Court reviews the Board’s legal determinations de ... See full document

... These two are predators who feed off of the fraud they perpetrate on unwitting local people and business people. I believe their continuing fraudulent and illegal activities need to be exposed. The general public ... See full document

... 9 the other Sellers from receiving the benefits of their bargain with Defendants.” 34 But this obligation is not implied; it expressly is delineated in the Purchase Agreement. Section 1.8 of the Purchase Agreement ... See full document

... e) Failed to take adequate steps to remedy the above failures including, but not limited to, recall asbestos and asbestos products, to abate asbestos on their property, [r] ... See full document

... conveniens, Delaware courts apply different standards depending on the ...the Delaware case is filed first, or there is no other pending action, the Court examines the motion under the traditional ... See full document

... [a]t the outset, a court must determine whether the provision in question is ambiguous. Ambiguity exists when a statute is capable of being reasonably interpreted in two or more different senses. If the statute is ... See full document

... Defendants state that the Court erred as a matter of law in allowing a board-certified orthopedic surgeon to testify regarding all of Rodas’ post-accident injuries and ... See full document

... to Delaware Code Title 18, Section 3914: [a]n insurer shall be required during the pendency of any claim received pursuant to a casualty insurance policy to give prompt and timely written notice to a claimant ... See full document

... In its Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’ injuries did not result from the ownership, maintenance, or use of the insured vehicle. Plaintiffs assert that the insured vehicle was an active ... See full document

... the Delaware Supreme Court found an implied-in-fact agreement to trigger the five-year statutory ...Supreme Court to hold that “the only reasonable conclusion is that the Carrier considered itself ... See full document

... Before this Court is Employee Lisa Darling’s appeal of a decision of the Industrial Accident Board (“IAB” or “the Board”) finding that her earning capacity was $6.63 per hour.. Employer [r] ... See full document

... (12) After evaluating the Cryo-Maid factors and the principles from Chrysler First, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs’ choice of forum will be honored in this case. 18 Defendant has not met the demanding burden ... See full document

... The Superior Court reviews the de novo application of the law by DHSS in determining the qualifications of the applicant for assistance through the Medicaid ...the Court proceeds to the question of ... See full document

... which the merchandisers perform their services are necessarily included within Spar’s enterprise and are, thus, subsumed within “place of business” as contemplated by Section 3302(10)(K)(ii). Moreover, there is ... See full document

... The employer next contends that the Board committed legal error by not engaging in a successive carrier analysis to decide whether the 2002 injury was simply a recurrence of the 1993 inj[r] ... See full document

... 2 Upon consideration of the plaintiff’s motion for reargument and the record of this case, it appears that: 1. Although this is a motion for reargument, the underlying issue is whether, in this medical malpractice case, ... See full document