Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 Delaware opinions name it 3 courts 2001–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. Midcapgreen2 sentences2025“An adverse inference is appropriate where a party fails to preserve evidence while being consciously aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the information will be lost, and the failure results in prejudice to the opposing party.” 56 This includes conduct such as affirmative deletion or failure to suspend automatic deletion settings after a duty to preserve has attached.57 The court need not find direct evidence of intent to destroy specific exculpatory evidence to enter adverse inferences.58 Rather, adverse inferences are appropriate where “a litigant 55 Defs.’ Supplemental Br. ¶ 2025At a minimum, Defendants are entitled to their fees and costs. “[W]hen a party fails to comply with discovery orders of the Court or otherwise engages in discovery abuses, the award of attorneys’ fees and expenses to the opposing party is mandatory, absent a showing by the wrongdoer that his actions were substantially justified or that other circumstances make the award unjust.”54 52 Pls.’ Opposition Br. ¶¶ 21-22, 32, 43-45. 53 See also Sears, Roebuck & Go. v. Midcap, 893 A.2d 542, 552 (Del. 2006)(holding that an adverse inference instruction is proper where evidence was destroyed intentionall | 3 | 3 |
Goldstein v. Dennergreen1 sentence2025“An adverse inference is appropriate where a party fails to preserve evidence while being consciously aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the information will be lost, and the failure results in prejudice to the opposing party.” 56 This includes conduct such as affirmative deletion or failure to suspend automatic deletion settings after a duty to preserve has attached.57 The court need not find direct evidence of intent to destroy specific exculpatory evidence to enter adverse inferences.58 Rather, adverse inferences are appropriate where “a litigant 55 Defs.’ Supplemental Br. ¶ | 1 | 1 |
Beard Research, Inc. v. Katesgreen1 sentence2025“An adverse inference is appropriate where a party fails to preserve evidence while being consciously aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the information will be lost, and the failure results in prejudice to the opposing party.” 56 This includes conduct such as affirmative deletion or failure to suspend automatic deletion settings after a duty to preserve has attached.57 The court need not find direct evidence of intent to destroy specific exculpatory evidence to enter adverse inferences.58 Rather, adverse inferences are appropriate where “a litigant 55 Defs.’ Supplemental Br. ¶ | 1 | 1 |
Bader v. Fishergreen1 sentence2025Fin., LLC v. Barnes and Noble Educ., Inc., 2020 WL 1527784 , at *11 (Del. Ch. Mar. 30, 2020) (quoting Bader v. Fisher, 504 A.2d 1091, 1096 (Del. 1986)). | 1 | 1 |
Ebersole v. Lowengrubgreen1 sentence2023Shortly after the termination of the Contract, the Homeowners, through 14 Id. at 3 (emphasis added). 15 Opposition to Counterclaim Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment at 2 (Transaction ID 67705072). 16 Ebersole v. Lowengrub, 180 A.2d 467, 468-69 (Del. 1962) (“Under no circumstances…will summary judgment be granted when, from the evidence produced, there is a reasonable indication that a material fact is in dispute. | 1 | 1 |
Cloroben Chemical Corp. v. Comegysgreen1 sentence2020Moreover, depending on the outcome of Plaintiff’s pending motion for sanctions, she may be entitled to an adverse inference instruction that Castillo did not apply his brakes at all. 24 21 Cloroben Chemical Corp. v. Comegys, 464 A.2d 887, 891 (Del. | 1 | 1 |
Eustice v. Rupertgreen2 sentences2020Super. 1983) (quoting Eustice v. Rupert, 460 A.2d 507, 509 (Del. 1983)). 22 Jardel, 523 A.2d at 531 . 23 Eustice, 460 A.2d at 509 . 24 Plaintiff has a pending motion for sanctions against Castillo and Baldor for failing to preserve data from the Engine Control Module (ECM), which is a vehicle’s “black box” that records speed, braking, and similar driver functions. 2020Super. 1983) (quoting Eustice v. Rupert, 460 A.2d 507, 509 (Del. 1983)). 22 Jardel, 523 A.2d at 531 . 23 Eustice, 460 A.2d at 509 . 24 Plaintiff has a pending motion for sanctions against Castillo and Baldor for failing to preserve data from the Engine Control Module (ECM), which is a vehicle’s “black box” that records speed, braking, and similar driver functions. | 1 | 1 |
Joan M. Callahan v. Fred Schultzgreen1 sentence2018Compare Callahan v. Schultz, 783 F.2d 1543, 1545 (11th Cir. 1986) (holding that “[u]nder the adverse inference rule, we hold the district court was justified in denying the government’s motion to dismiss[]” where government failed to produce exhibits it claimed would justify dismissal); Richtek Tech. | 1 | 1 |
Wainwright v. Stategreen1 sentence2001Supr., 504 A.2d 1096, 1100 (1986). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Delaware. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
The Honorable Karen Weldin Stewart, CIR-ML, Insurance Commissioner v. Wilmington Trust SP Services, Inc.
green
1 sentence2024“Courts have applied the sole actor exception where the agent committing the fraud was the sole stockholder of the corporation, or otherwise ‘dominated’ the corporation.” Stewart, 112 A.3d at 310 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
McCloskey v. McKelvey
green
1 sentence2023Ct. May 21, 2020) (citing McCloskey, 174 A.2d at 693 ). 7 The Delaware Supreme Court set forth the standard for when an adverse inference instruction regarding spoliation is appropriate in its 2006 decision in Sears, Roebuck, & Co. v. Midcap. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Jardel Co., Inc. v. Hughes
green
1 sentence2020Super. 1983) (quoting Eustice v. Rupert, 460 A.2d 507, 509 (Del. 1983)). 22 Jardel, 523 A.2d at 531 . 23 Eustice, 460 A.2d at 509 . 24 Plaintiff has a pending motion for sanctions against Castillo and Baldor for failing to preserve data from the Engine Control Module (ECM), which is a vehicle’s “black box” that records speed, braking, and similar driver functions. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
green
2 sentences2006Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). 29 . 2006Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). 29 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.