of review standard in Delaware

2023The Court’s principal function when considering a motion for summary judgment is to examine the record to determine whether genuine issues of material fact exist, “but not to decide such issues.”104 97 Id. at 29. 98 Id. at 29-30. 99 Id. at 30. 100 Id. at 31. 101 Id. 102 Id. at 32-33. 103 Id. at 33. 104 Merrill v. Crothall-American Inc., 606 A.2d 96, 99-100 (Del. 1992) (internal citations omitted); Oliver B.

2023The Court’s principal function when considering a motion for summary judgment is to examine the record to determine whether genuine issues of material fact exist, “but not to decide such issues.” 110 Summary judgment will be granted if, after viewing the record in a light most favorable to a nonmoving party, no genuine issues of material fact exist and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 111 If, however, the record reveals that material facts are in dispute, or if the factual record has not been developed thoroughly enough to allow the Court to apply the law to the fac

2019Il, STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review for appeals from a Board of Adjustment decision is limited to the correction of errors of law and determination of whether substantial evidence exists in the record to support the Board’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.’ Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’ If the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, a reviewing court must sustain the Board’s decision even if such a court would have decided the case differently if it had come before it in

2018STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review for appeals from a Board of Adjustment decision is limited to the correction of errors of law and determination of whether substantial evidence exists in the record to support the Board’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.3 Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.4 If the said structure shall be elevated to the relevant minimum building-elevation requirement as per § 185-60B of this chapter 3 Janaman v. New Castle County Bd. Oan'justment, 364 A. 2d 1241, 1241 (Del.

2024STANDARD OF REVIEW The test for sufficiency of a complaint challenged by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is whether a plaintiff may recover under any reasonably conceivable set of circumstances susceptible of proof under the complaint. 1 In making its determination, the Court must accept all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable factual inferences in favor of the non-moving party.2 The complaint must be without merit as a matter of fact or law to be dismissed. 3 Therefore, if the plaintiff can recover under any conceivable set of circumstances susceptible

2023STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review upon a motion to dismiss under Civil Rule 12(b)(6) allows for a broad test of sufficiency.60 The test asks “whether a plaintiff may recover under any reasonably conceivable set of circumstances susceptible of proof under the complaint.”61 When viewing a motion to dismiss, the Court (i) accepts all well pleaded factual allegations as true, (ii) accepts even vague allegations as “well pleaded” as long as the opposing party is put on notice, (iii) draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party, and (iv) only dismisses if the 54 Id. ¶ 4.

2024STANDARD OF REVIEW The test for sufficiency of a complaint challenged by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is whether a plaintiff may recover under any reasonably conceivable set of circumstances susceptible of proof under the complaint. 1 In making its determination, the Court must accept all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable factual inferences in favor of the non-moving party.2 The complaint must be without merit as a matter of fact or law to be dismissed. 3 Therefore, if the plaintiff can recover under any conceivable set of circumstances susceptible

2022STANDARD OF REVIEW The test for sufficiency of a complaint challenged by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is whether a plaintiff may recover under any reasonably conceivable set of circumstances susceptible of proof under the complaint.1 In making its 1 Spence v. Funk, 396 A.2d 967, 968 (1978); see Cambium Ltd. v. Trilantic Capital Partners III L.P., 2012 WL 172844, at *1 (Del.

2018STANDARD OF REVIEW Our standard of review for constitutional challenges is de novo.4 To the extent we review the sufficiency of the evidence, it is for an abuse of discretion.5 Our review of a Superior Court judge’s revocation of a defendant’s probation is for an abuse of discretion.6 4 Jenkins v. State, 2004 WL 2743556, at *2 (Del. 2004). 5 Id. 6 Kurzmann v. State, 903 A.2d 702, 716 (Del. 2006). 8 DISCUSSION I.

2018STANDARD OF REVIEW Our standard of review for constitutional challenges is de novo.4 To the extent we review the sufficiency of the evidence, it is for an abuse of discretion.5 Our review of a Superior Court judge’s revocation of a defendant’s probation is for an abuse of discretion.6 4 Jenkins v. State, 2004 WL 2743556, at *2 (Del. 2004). 5 Id. 6 Kurzmann v. State, 903 A.2d 702, 716 (Del. 2006). 8 DISCUSSION I.

2018STANDARD OF REVIEW Our standard of review for constitutional challenges is de novo.4 To the extent we review the sufficiency of the evidence, it is for an abuse of discretion.5 Our review of a Superior Court judge’s revocation of a defendant’s probation is for an abuse of discretion.6 4 Jenkins v. State, 2004 WL 2743556, at *2 (Del. 2004). 5 Id. 6 Kurzmann v. State, 903 A.2d 702, 716 (Del. 2006). 8 DISCUSSION I.

2018STANDARD OF REVIEW Our standard of review for constitutional challenges is de novo.4 To the extent we review the sufficiency of the evidence, it is for an abuse of discretion.5 Our review of a Superior Court judge’s revocation of a defendant’s probation is for an abuse of discretion.6 4 Jenkins v. State, 2004 WL 2743556, at *2 (Del. 2004). 5 Id. 6 Kurzmann v. State, 903 A.2d 702, 716 (Del. 2006). 8 DISCUSSION I.

2025ANALYSIS Defendants’ Motion makes three general arguments.69 First, the Motion argues none of the Defendants can be held liable for the alleged breaches of the 64 See D.I. 82, Exhibit A to Letter to Judge Adams from Charles P. Wood enclosing the PowerPoint slides Plaintiff AG Mobile Holdings, L.P. presented during the Court’s October 30, 2024 hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Verified Amended and Supplemental Complaint; D.I. 83, Exhibit A to Letter to Judge Adams from Michael A. Laukaitis transmitting courtesy copies of presentation used at hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss t

2025ANALYSIS Defendants’ Motion makes three general arguments.69 First, the Motion argues none of the Defendants can be held liable for the alleged breaches of the 64 See D.I. 82, Exhibit A to Letter to Judge Adams from Charles P. Wood enclosing the PowerPoint slides Plaintiff AG Mobile Holdings, L.P. presented during the Court’s October 30, 2024 hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Verified Amended and Supplemental Complaint; D.I. 83, Exhibit A to Letter to Judge Adams from Michael A. Laukaitis transmitting courtesy copies of presentation used at hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss t

2022Summary judgment may only be granted when there are no genuine disputes as to material facts.27 Specifically, the Court must “view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.”28 When faced with a motion for summary judgment the trial court must “identify disputed factual issues whose resolution is necessary to decide the case, but not to the decide such issues.”29 The moving party bears the initial burden of proving that there are no material issues of fact.30 If the motion is properly supported then the burden shifts to a non-moving party to demonstrate that a material i

2022Summary judgment may only be granted when there are no genuine disputes as to material facts.27 Specifically, the Court must “view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.”28 When faced with a motion for summary judgment the trial court must “identify disputed factual issues whose resolution is necessary to decide the case, but not to the decide such issues.”29 The moving party bears the initial burden of proving that there are no material issues of fact.30 If the motion is properly supported then the burden shifts to a non-moving party to demonstrate that a material i

2020The Court’s principal function when considering a motion for summary judgment is to examine the record to determine whether genuine issues of material fact exist, “but not to decide such issues.” 27 Summary judgment will be granted if, after viewing the record in a light most favorable to a nonmoving party, no genuine issues of material fact exist and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.28 If, however, the record reveals that material facts are in dispute, or if the factual record has not been developed thoroughly enough to allow the Court to apply the 23 Pl.’s Resp. at

2020The Court’s principal function when considering a motion for summary judgment is to examine the record to determine whether genuine issues of material fact exist, “but not to decide such issues.” 27 Summary judgment will be granted if, after viewing the record in a light most favorable to a nonmoving party, no genuine issues of material fact exist and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.28 If, however, the record reveals that material facts are in dispute, or if the factual record has not been developed thoroughly enough to allow the Court to apply the 23 Pl.’s Resp. at

2019As a matter of law, a trial court's authority in respect to order of proof is broad, and appellate courts will not overturn their decisions regarding mode and order of presenting evidence unless they infringe on a constitutional right or constitute an abuse of discretion.? 2 Hamann v. State, 565 A.2d 924, 928 (Del. 1989), citing McLean v. State, Del.