low bar in Delaware

2023Ct. 2002)(citations omitted). 71 Powell v. OTAC, Inc., 223 A.3d 864 , 870 (Del. 2019)(quoting Roos Foods v. Guardado, 152 A.3d 114, 118 (Del. 2016)). 11 Substantial evidence is “more than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance of evidence.”72 This is a highly deferential standard; “[i]t is a low standard to affirm and a high standard to overturn.”73 Questions of law are reviewed de novo.74 The Court “[does] not weigh the evidence, determine questions of credibility, or make its own factual findings.”75 Instead, it must take “due account of the Board’s experience and specialized compete

2021Absent legal error, the Court will defer to the Board’s factual findings where supported by substantial evidence.12 The substantial evidence standard sets a low bar.13 An agency decision is supported by substantial evidence if it is based on “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”14 “Only when there is no satisfactory proof to support a factual finding of the Board may the [Court] . . . overturn that finding.”15 If substantial evidence for the Board’s decision exists, it “must be affirmed.”16 Accordingly, unless the Board’s 10 See, e.g.,

2026See Abry P’rs, 891 A.2d at 1050 (“[S]tate of mind and knowledge may be averred generally pursuant to Rule 9(b) because ‘any attempt to require specificity in pleading a condition of mind would be unworkable and undesirable.’” (quoting Desert Equities, Inc. v. Morgan Stanley Leveraged Equity Fund, II, L.P., 624 A.2d 1199, 1208 (Del. 1993))).

2026See Abry P’rs, 891 A.2d at 1050 (“[S]tate of mind and knowledge may be averred generally pursuant to Rule 9(b) because ‘any attempt to require specificity in pleading a condition of mind would be unworkable and undesirable.’” (quoting Desert Equities, Inc. v. Morgan Stanley Leveraged Equity Fund, II, L.P., 624 A.2d 1199, 1208 (Del. 1993))).

2026The phone contained messages from the defendant’s significant other that named the defendant.33 The officer also testified regarding how the technician generated the text message reports.34 The State sought to authenticate text messages downloaded from the defendant’s cellphone without introducing subscriber information.35 Based on the circumstantial evidence, we agreed that the State established a rational basis for inferring that the defendant owned the phone and wrote the messages.36 (20) Here, the State’s evidence was sufficient “to clear the low bar for authentication.”37 The VIN number c

2024Hutton Grp., Inc., 652 A.2d 578, 589 (Del.

2023DISCUSSION The IAB “found Dr. Piccioni’s testimony [to be] very convincing, and Claimant’s overall case [to be] weak.”78 At this juncture, the Court’s role is not to 72 Breeding v. Contractors-One-Inc., 549 A.2d 1102, 1104 (Del. 1988)(citation omitted). 73 Hanson v. Delaware State Public Integrity Comm’n, 2012 WL 3860732 * 7 (Del.

2022STANDARD OF REVIEW On appeal from the IAB, the Superior Court limits its review to determining whether the IAB’s decision was free from legal error and supported by substantial evidence.32 “Substantial evidence is that which ‘a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’ It is a low standard to affirm and a high standard to overturn.”33 Consequently, the Court must search the entire record to determine whether, based on all the testimony and exhibits, the Board could fairly and reasonably reach its conclusions.34 However, the Court “does not sit as trier of fact with aut

2022The Court has neither weighed the evidence itself nor made its own factual findings; rather, the Court has carefully reviewed the record to determine whether the evidence therein is adequate to support the Secretary’s factual findings.10 The Court has also carefully reviewed the record to determine whether the Secretary could have “fairly and reasonably” reached their conclusions. 11 “It is a low standard to affirm and a high standard to overturn.”12 If the findings and conclusions are found to be based upon substantial evidence and there is no error of law, the decision must be affirmed.13 Fo

2022“Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Oceanport Indus. v. Wilmington Stevedores, 636 A.2d 892, 899 (Del. 1994). 33 Hanson v. Delaware State Public Integrity Comm’n., 2012 WL 3860732 at *7.

2021Absent legal error, the Court will defer to the Board’s factual findings where supported by substantial evidence.12 The substantial evidence standard sets a low bar.13 An agency decision is supported by substantial evidence if it is based on “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”14 “Only when there is no satisfactory proof to support a factual finding of the Board may the [Court] . . . overturn that finding.”15 If substantial evidence for the Board’s decision exists, it “must be affirmed.”16 Accordingly, unless the Board’s 10 See, e.g.,

2021Absent legal error, the Court will defer to the Board’s factual findings where supported by substantial evidence.12 The substantial evidence standard sets a low bar.13 An agency decision is supported by substantial evidence if it is based on “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”14 “Only when there is no satisfactory proof to support a factual finding of the Board may the [Court] . . . overturn that finding.”15 If substantial evidence for the Board’s decision exists, it “must be affirmed.”16 Accordingly, unless the Board’s 10 See, e.g.,

2020Motors, 897 A.2d at 168 . 40 Savor, Inc. v. FMR Corp., 812 A.2d 894 , 896–97 (Del. 2002) (citations omitted). 8 “[The Court] do[es] not, however, blindly accept conclusory allegations unsupported by specific facts . . . .” 41 A. Plaintiff’s Complaint Lacks Sufficient Pled Facts To Put Defendants on Notice of the Claims Against Them All complaints in this court, at a minimum, must satisfy Chancery Rule 8(a) to survive dismissal. 42 While “Rule 8(a) does not demand [] that plaintiffs present a paragon of the well-organized complaint,” it does require that a complaint at least “give general notic

2016State Sys. of Higher Educ., 470 F.3d 535, 539 (3d Cir. 2006) (“there is a low bar for establishing a prima facie case of employment discrimination [under Title VII].”); Ennis, 2015 WL 1542151 , at *5 (noting that the prima facie requirement for an employment discrimination claim is a “burden easily met.”) (quoting Doe v. C.A.R.S.

2016Protection Plus, Inc., 527 F.3d 358, 365 (3rd Cir. 2008)). -14- male employees.