11 Delaware opinions name it 4 courts 1983–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Delaware courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Rothgreen2 sentences2025Protected Property Interest Procedural due process protections are triggered only by the deprivation of a protected interest in life, liberty, or property.139 To have a protected interest in a government benefit, “a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire” or a “unilateral expectation of it.”140 She must have “a legitimate claim of entitlement to it.”141 Such entitlements arise from independent sources like state law—not from the Constitution itself.142 The plaintiffs claim a property interest in the retention of a favorable—albeit incorrect—property classification.143 Bu 2025Protected Property Interest Procedural due process protections are triggered only by the deprivation of a protected interest in life, liberty, or property.139 To have a protected interest in a government benefit, “a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire” or a “unilateral expectation of it.”140 She must have “a legitimate claim of entitlement to it.”141 Such entitlements arise from independent sources like state law—not from the Constitution itself.142 The plaintiffs claim a property interest in the retention of a favorable—albeit incorrect—property classification.143 Bu | 3 | 5 |
Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzalesgreen1 sentence2025Protected Property Interest Procedural due process protections are triggered only by the deprivation of a protected interest in life, liberty, or property.139 To have a protected interest in a government benefit, “a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire” or a “unilateral expectation of it.”140 She must have “a legitimate claim of entitlement to it.”141 Such entitlements arise from independent sources like state law—not from the Constitution itself.142 The plaintiffs claim a property interest in the retention of a favorable—albeit incorrect—property classification.143 Bu | 1 | 1 |
Marathon Petroleum Corp. v. Secretary of Finance Ex Rel. Delawaregreen2 sentences2020Finally, AT&T argues that even if the requests might be technically authorized, the Department’s demands for information are “‘so obviously pretextual or insatiable’” as to extend “‘beyond a legitimate inquiry.’” Dkt. 10 at 23 (quoting Marathon Petroleum Corp. v. Sec’y of Fin., 876 F.3d 481, 501 (3d Cir. 2017)). 2020A subpoena can also be abusive if its demands for 57 information are “so obviously pretextual or insatiable” as to extend “beyond a legitimate inquiry.” Marathon, 876 F.3d at 501 . | 1 | 1 |
Griffeth v. Detrichgreen1 sentence2015Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 11-12 , 99 S.Ct. 2100 , 60 L.Ed.2d 668 (1979) (“accept[ing] respondents’ view that the expectancy of release provided in [a] statute is entitled to some measure of constitutional protection” where the state statute provided that the board of parole "shall order” the release of a committed offender who is eligible for release on parole unless the board determines that the release should be deferred for one of four enumerated reasons); Griffeth v. Detrich, 603 F.2d 118, 121 (9th Cir.1979) (finding a legitimate claim of entitlement for "persons who claim to meet the eligibili | 1 | 1 |
Rambo v. Fraczkowskigreen1 sentence2014Mayer v. Mayer, 132 A.2d 617, 621 (Del.1957) (quoted in Rambo v. Fraczkowski, 350 A.2d 774, 774 (Del.Super.1975)) (“In a contempt proceeding based upon the violation of an injunction, the only legitimate inquiry to be made by the court is whether or not it had jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject matter. | 1 | 1 |
Mayer v. Mayergreen1 sentence2014Mayer v. Mayer, 132 A.2d 617, 621 (Del.1957) (quoted in Rambo v. Fraczkowski, 350 A.2d 774, 774 (Del.Super.1975)) (“In a contempt proceeding based upon the violation of an injunction, the only legitimate inquiry to be made by the court is whether or not it had jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject matter. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Estradagreen2 sentences2002See State v. Estrada, 69 Haw. 204 , 738 P.2d 812, 822 (1987)(directing the trial judge on remand to disclose relevant portions of an internal affairs file to both sides who "shall then have an opportunity to review the evidence and argue which portions should be admitted and which other portions should be excluded.”) . 2002See State v. Estrada, 69 Haw. 204 , 738 P.2d 812, 822 (1987)(directing the trial judge on remand to disclose relevant portions of an internal affairs file to both sides who "shall then have an opportunity to review the evidence and argue which portions should be admitted and which other portions should be excluded.”) . | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Sol Mayergreen1 sentence1984See Weber, 457 A.2d at 681-682 ; United States v. Mayer, 556 F.2d 245, 250 (5th Cir.1977). | 1 | 1 |
Weber v. Stategreen1 sentence1984See Weber, 457 A.2d at 681-682 ; United States v. Mayer, 556 F.2d 245, 250 (5th Cir.1977). | 1 | 1 |
Davis v. Alaskagreen2 sentences1983See Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. at 318 , 94 S.Ct. at 1111 ; Frankenthal, 582 F.2d at 1106 ; Crudup, 422 A.2d at 793 . 1983See Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. at 318 , 94 S.Ct. at 1111 ; Frankenthal, 582 F.2d at 1106 ; Crudup, 422 A.2d at 793 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Delaware. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal & Correctional Complex
green
2 sentences2015Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 11-12 , 99 S.Ct. 2100 , 60 L.Ed.2d 668 (1979) (“accept[ing] respondents’ view that the expectancy of release provided in [a] statute is entitled to some measure of constitutional protection” where the state statute provided that the board of parole "shall order” the release of a committed offender who is eligible for release on parole unless the board determines that the release should be deferred for one of four enumerated reasons); Griffeth v. Detrich, 603 F.2d 118, 121 (9th Cir.1979) (finding a legitimate claim of entitlement for "persons who claim to meet the eligibili 2015Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 11-12 , 99 S.Ct. 2100 , 60 L.Ed.2d 668 (1979) (“accept[ing] respondents’ view that the expectancy of release provided in [a] statute is entitled to some measure of constitutional protection” where the state statute provided that the board of parole "shall order” the release of a committed offender who is eligible for release on parole unless the board determines that the release should be deferred for one of four enumerated reasons); Griffeth v. Detrich, 603 F.2d 118, 121 (9th Cir.1979) (finding a legitimate claim of entitlement for "persons who claim to meet the eligibili | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Slawik v. State
green
1 sentence1985A legitimate claim of entitlement may be created by State law, which provides “[Rjules or understandings that secure cer-jtain benefits and that support claims of entitlement to those benefits.” Roth, 92 S.Ct. at 2709 ; Slawik, 480 A.2d at 641 . | 1 | 1985–1985 |
United States v. Betty Frankenthal
green
1 sentence1983See Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. at 318 , 94 S.Ct. at 1111 ; Frankenthal, 582 F.2d at 1106 ; Crudup, 422 A.2d at 793 . | 1 | 1983–1983 |
State v. Crudup
green
1 sentence1983See Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. at 318 , 94 S.Ct. at 1111 ; Frankenthal, 582 F.2d at 1106 ; Crudup, 422 A.2d at 793 . | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.