green
Positive treatment
Issue: Anderson testDE ↗
Issue: postconviction relief claimDE ↗
Quoted verbatim 3×
38.3 score
G Cite
Treatment trajectory · 2008 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2008
2017
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
State v. White
a timely-filed motion for reargument is 'the proper device for seeking reconsideration' of a trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
State v. Wright
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
a timely- filed motion for reargument is 'the proper device for seeking reconsideration" of this court's findings of fact and conclusions of law.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
State of Delaware v. Kwalalon.
a timely-filed motion for reargument is 'the proper device for seeking reconsideration' of a trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Church
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Cf. Dishmon v. Fucci, 32 A.3d 338, 346 (Del. 2011) (“Delaware has a strong public policy that favors permitting a litigant a right to a day in court.”). 6 D.I. 45. 7 See Samuel v. State, 3 A.3d 1098 , 2010 WL 3245109, at *1 (Del.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Anderson v. Valvoline, Inc.
Anderson’s motion for reconsideration, dated January 7, 2025 and docketed on January 13, 2025, was untimely, and it therefore did not toll the time for filing an appeal from the Superior 2 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 3 Carr, 554 A.2d at 779 . 4 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 5 Samuel v. State, 2010 WL 3245109, at *1 (Del.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Hartmann
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Mr. Hartmann will not be permitted to re-file his “Motion for Appointment of Conflict-Free Counsel.” 1 See Samuel v. State, 3 A.3d 1098 , 2010 WL 3245109, at *1 (Del.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Anderson v. Hibachi Grill & Supreme Sushi Buffet Inc., aka Hibachi Grill International Buffet
Proc. 41(f) (authorizing dismissal without notice when a complaint “manifestly fails on its face to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court and where the Court concludes, in the exercise of its discretion, that the giving of notice would serve no meaningful purpose and that any response would be of no avail”). 3 Samuel v. State, 3 A.3d 1098 , 2010 WL 3245109, at *1 (TABLE) (Del.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Anderson v. Department of Health and Social Services
Proc. 41(f) (authorizing dismissal without notice when a complaint “manifestly fails on its face to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court and where the Court concludes, in the exercise of its discretion, that the giving of notice would serve no meaningful purpose and that any response would be of no avail”). 3 Samuel v. State, 3 A.3d 1098 , 2010 WL 3245109, at *1 (TABLE) (Del.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Anderson v. Fairfield Inn & Suites Middletown/Marriott International Inc.
Proc. 41(f) (authorizing dismissal without notice when a complaint “manifestly fails on its face to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court and where the Court concludes, in the exercise of its discretion, that the giving of notice would serve no meaningful purpose and that any response would be of no avail”). 3 Samuel v. State, 3 A.3d 1098 , 2010 WL 3245109, at *1 (TABLE) (Del.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Anderson v. Christiana Care Health Services, Inc.
Proc. 41(f) (authorizing dismissal without notice when a complaint “manifestly fails on its face to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court and where the Court concludes, in the exercise of its discretion, that the giving of notice would serve no meaningful purpose and that any response would be of no avail”). 3 Samuel v. State, 3 A.3d 1098 , 2010 WL 3245109, at *1 (TABLE) (Del.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Mariney
Mariney’s claim that Trial Counsel “did court’s denial of a motion to suppress in a violation of probation proceeding where “there was no attempt to comply with basic aspects of the probation procedures”); McAllister v. State, 3 A.3d 1098, 1098 (Del. 2010) (TABLE) (denying a postconviction relief claim where the administrative search procedures were followed) 54 2019 WL 245292 , at *3 (Del.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Baird
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
In Delaware, there is no specific criminal rule governing motions for reargument.1 Superior Court Criminal Rule 57(d) provides for the application of the 1 See Samuel v. State, 3 A.3d 1098 , 2010 WL 3245109, at *1 (Del.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Williams
(5×)
also: Cited "see"
R. 57(d) (“In all cases not provided for by rule . . . the court shall regulate its practice in accordance with the applicable Superior Court civil rule. . . .”). 8 Samuel, 2010 WL 3245109, at *1 (applying Superior Court Civil Rule 59(e) to a criminal motion for reargument of the Court’s Order); accord Dickens v. State, 852 A.2d 907 , 2004 WL 1535814 , at *1 (Del.
cited
Cited "see"
Miller v. State Of Delaware
See Miller v. State, 3 A.3d 1098 (Table), 2009 WL 418238, at *1 (Del.
cited
Cited "see"
Miller v. Snyder
See Miller v. State, 3 A.3d 1098 (Table), 2009 WL 418238, at *1 (Del.
cited
Cited "see"
Rodriguez v. Pierce
See Rodriguez v. State, 3 A.3d 1098 (Table), 2010 WL 3549863 (Del.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re: Asbestos Litigation. Limited to Mary Anne Hudson v. International Paper Co.
See, e.g., Samuel v. State, 2010 WL 3245109, at *1 (Del.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
SAMUEL
v.
STATE.
v.
STATE.
275, 2010.
Supreme Court of Delaware.
Aug 17, 2010.
Cited by 14 opinions | Published
Decision Without Published Opinion Affirmed.