green
Positive treatment
Issue: anti-assignment clauseDE ↗
Issue: unjust enrichment claimDE ↗
19.7 score
G Cite
cited 5× by 5 distinct cases, 2017–2022 ·
…it appears to a reasonable certainty that under no state of facts which could be proved to support the claim asserted would plaintiff be entitled to relief.
at p. 2
⚠ not in text
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, 2018–2019 ·
…plaintiff 'may recover under any reasonably conceivable set of circumstances susceptible of proof.
at p. 2
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2017 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2017
2021
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Isken v. Rick Galster III Insurance Agency, Inc.
STANDARD OF REVIEW On a motion to dismiss, the Court must determine whether the “plaintiff ‘may recover under any reasonably conceivable set of circumstances susceptible of proof.’”15 If the plaintiff may recover, then the motion must be denied.16 This Court may grant the motion if “it appears to a reasonable certainty that under no state of facts which could be proved to support the claim asserted would plaintiff be entitled to relief.”17 When applying this standard, the Court will accept as true all non- conclusory, well-pled allegations18 and must draw all reasonable factual inf…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
MTA Canada Royalty, Corp. v. Compania Minera Pangea, S.A. DE C.V.
MTA alternatively argues the anti-assignment clause is ambiguous such that CMP’s motion to dismiss must be denied so the parties may pursue discovery. 5 ANALYSIS On a motion to dismiss, the Court must determine whether the plaintiff “may recover under any reasonably conceivable set of circumstances susceptible of proof[.]”8 A court may grant the motion if “it appears to a reasonable certainty that under no state of facts which could be proved to support the claim asserted would [the] plaintiff be entitled to relief.” 9 When applying this standard, the Court will accept as true all no…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
William Patrick Sheehan v. AssuredPartners, Inc.
LLC, 27 A.3d 531, 537 (Del. 2011) (citing Savor, Inc. v. FMR Corp., 812 A.2d 894 , 896–97 (Del.2002)). 86 Holmes v. D'Elia, 2015 WL 8480150, at *2 (Del.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Guy c. City of Wilmington
On a motion to dismiss, the Court must determine whether the plaintiff “may recover under any reasonably conceivable set of circumstances susceptible of proof[.]”24 A court may grant the motion if “it appears to a reasonable certainty that under no state of facts which could be proved to support the claim asserted would [the] plaintiff be entitled to relief.”25 When applying this standard, the Court will 23 526 A.2d at 905 (citing Baker, 369 U.S. at 217 ). 24 Holmes v. D’Elia, 2015 WL 8480150, at *2 (Del.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Continental Finance Company, LLC v. ICS Corporation
Continental alleges ICS committed fraud that went beyond ICS’s alleged breach of its contractual obligations to Continental such that it would constitute a fraud claim separate and distinct from the breach of contract * Holmes v. D’Elia, 2015 WL 8480150, at *2 (Del.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Quarum v. Mitchell International, Inc.
As the Court of Chancery explained in Alliance Data Systems Corp. v. Blackstone Capital Partners V L.P., there generally is an acknowledged 2 Holmes v. D’Elia, 2015 WL 8480150, at *2 (Del.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Coeur Mining, Inc. v. Compania Minera Pangea, S.A. DE C.V.
When applying this standard, the Court will accept as true all non-conclusory, well-pleaded allegations.” In addition, “a trial court must draw all reasonable factual inferences in favor of the party opposing the . 11 motion.” ’ Holmes v. D’Elia, 2015 WL 8480150, at *2 (Del.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
3M Company v. Neology, Inc.
ANALYSIS On a motion to dismiss, the Court must determine whether the “plaintiff “may recover under any reasonably conceivable set of circumstances susceptible of proof.”””* “If [the plaintiff] may recover, the motion must be denied.”?” A court may grant the motion if “it appears to a reasonable certainty that under no state of facts which could be proved to support the claim asserted would plaintiff be entitled to relief.””** When applying this standard, the Court will accept as true all °° Holmes v. D’Elia, 2015 WL 8480150, at *2 (Del.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
P&TI Acquisition Company, Inc. v. Morgenthaler Partners VII, LP
ANALYSIS On a motion to dismiss, the Court must determine whether the “plaintiff ‘may recover under any reasonably conceivable set of circumstances susceptible of proof.’”!° “If [the plaintiff] may recover, the motion must be denied.”’’ A court may grant the motion if “it appears to a reasonable certainty that under no state of facts which could be proved to support the claim asserted would plaintiff be '6 Holmes v. D’Elia, 2015 WL 8480150, at *2 (Del.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Patel v. Sunvest Realty Corporation
ANALYSIS On a motion to dismiss, the Court must determine whether the “plaintiff ‘may recover under any reasonably conceivable set of circumstances susceptible of proof.’”3 “If [the plaintiff] may recover, the motion must be denied.”4 A court may grant the motion if “it appears to a reasonable certainty that under no state of facts which could be proved to support the claim asserted would plaintiff be entitled to 3 Holmes v. D’Elia, 2015 WL 8480150, at *2 (Del.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Patel v. Sunvest Realty Corporation
ANALYSIS On a motion to dismiss, the Court must determine whether the “plaintiff ‘may recover under any reasonably conceivable set of circumstances susceptible of proof.’”3 “If [the plaintiff] may recover, the motion must be denied.”4 A court may grant the motion if “it appears to a reasonable certainty that under no state of facts which could be proved to support the claim asserted would plaintiff be 3 Holmes v. D’Elia, 2015 WL 8480150, at *2 (Del.
discussed
Cited "see"
Jones v. Coupe
(2×)
See Banks v. State, 129 A.3d 881 (Table), 2015 WL 8481972 (Del.
discussed
Cited "see"
Howell v. Coupe
(2×)
See Banks v. State, 129 A.3d 881 (Table), 2015 WL 8481972 (Del.
cited
Cited "see"
Owens v. DeMatteis
(D.L. 8 at 2); see Banks v. State, 129 A.3d 881 (Table), 2015 WL 8481972 (Del.
cited
Cited "see"
Trower v. DeMatteis
The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed that decision on December 9, 2015. 8 at 2); see Banks v. State, 129 A.3d 881 (Table), 2015 WL 8481972 (Del.
cited
Cited "see"
Simmons v. Coupe
(D.I. 12 at 2); see Banks v. State, 129 A.3d 881 (Table), 2015 WL 8481972 (Del.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Marvin HOLMES, Below, Appellant/Cross-Appellee
v.
Detective Gregory D'ELIA, Below, Appellee/Cross-Appellant
v.
Detective Gregory D'ELIA, Below, Appellee/Cross-Appellant
No. 236, 2015.
Supreme Court of Delaware.
Dec 8, 2015.
Cited by 17 opinions | Published
Court Below — Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County, C.A. No. N13C-12-185.
AFFIRMED.