extraordinary circumstances standard (Delaware) · Go Syfert
← Delaware issues

extraordinary circumstances standard in Delaware

5 Delaware opinions name it 3 courts 1985–2026 2 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.

Followed or applied (5)

CaseFollowedCited
Brittingham v. Stategreen
del · 1998 · cited in 1 Delaware opinions naming this issue, 2026–2026
1 sentence

2026June 26, 2025) (citing Brittingham, 705 A.2d at 578). -32- an illegal manner.128 And in the norm, a motion seeking correction of a sentence imposed in an illegal manner will not be considered if filed more than ninety days after imposition of the sentence.129 An exception to the ninety-day rule provides that a defendant may still challenge a sentence imposed in an illegal manner in “extraordinary circumstances.”130 The extraordinary-circumstances exception to that time bar is applied sparingly and requires a showing of highly unusual facts, entirely beyond the defendant’s control, that specifi

11
McMahon v. Office of City and County of Honolulugreen
haw · 1970 · cited in 1 Delaware opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023
1 sentence

2023Under his reading of Rule (6)(e)(1), the Court is merely required to control which portions of the grand jury proceedings are recorded to prevent surreptitious recording by unauthorized persons.154 151 See State’s Resp. to Defense Mot. for Court Approval of Recording of Grand Jury Testimony ¶ 8 (arguing that the extraordinary circumstances standard is simply a test for operationalizing the interests of justice standard for disclosure). 152 Price, 474 F.2d at 1225 ; see also Peterson, 2019 WL 4493494 , at *5 (“Despite recordation, the secrecy of grand jury proceedings will still be protected by

11
In Re Steiglergreen
del · 1969 · cited in 1 Delaware opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023
1 sentence

2023Under his reading of Rule (6)(e)(1), the Court is merely required to control which portions of the grand jury proceedings are recorded to prevent surreptitious recording by unauthorized persons.154 151 See State’s Resp. to Defense Mot. for Court Approval of Recording of Grand Jury Testimony ¶ 8 (arguing that the extraordinary circumstances standard is simply a test for operationalizing the interests of justice standard for disclosure). 152 Price, 474 F.2d at 1225 ; see also Peterson, 2019 WL 4493494 , at *5 (“Despite recordation, the secrecy of grand jury proceedings will still be protected by

11
Shipley v. New Castle Countygreen
del · 2009 · cited in 1 Delaware opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020
1 sentence

2020Delaware has adopted 19 7d. 20 Shipley v. New Castle County, 975 A. 2d 764, 770 (Del. 2009). 11 the extraordinary circumstances test established by the United States Supreme Court, which “vests power in courts adequate to enable them to vacate judgments whenever such action is appropriate to accomplish justice.””!

11
Rittenhouse Associates, Inc. v. Frederic A. Potts & Co.green
del · 1977 · cited in 1 Delaware opinions naming this issue, 1985–1985
1 sentence

1985See Rittenhouse Associates, Inc. v. Frederic A. Potts and Co., Inc., Del.Supr. 382 A.2d 235 (1977); (2) For a time after the case was dismissed, negotiations in regard to the case continued between appellee’s attorney and appellants’ representatives and so, to that extent, the conduct of both parties indicated that they attached little significance to the dismissal; (3) There is no evidence that the notices required by Superior Court Rule 41(e) and 77(d) actually went forward; and (4) The case against both defendants was based on the alleged negligence of Dr. Ramachandra during a single examin

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Delaware. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
United States v. Trunnell Levett Price, and Arnold Lewis Coffey green
ca9 · 1973
1 sentence

2023Under his reading of Rule (6)(e)(1), the Court is merely required to control which portions of the grand jury proceedings are recorded to prevent surreptitious recording by unauthorized persons.154 151 See State’s Resp. to Defense Mot. for Court Approval of Recording of Grand Jury Testimony ¶ 8 (arguing that the extraordinary circumstances standard is simply a test for operationalizing the interests of justice standard for disclosure). 152 Price, 474 F.2d at 1225 ; see also Peterson, 2019 WL 4493494 , at *5 (“Despite recordation, the secrecy of grand jury proceedings will still be protected by

12023–2023
In Re Jessup's Petition green
delsuperct · 1957
1 sentence

2023Under his reading of Rule (6)(e)(1), the Court is merely required to control which portions of the grand jury proceedings are recorded to prevent surreptitious recording by unauthorized persons.154 151 See State’s Resp. to Defense Mot. for Court Approval of Recording of Grand Jury Testimony ¶ 8 (arguing that the extraordinary circumstances standard is simply a test for operationalizing the interests of justice standard for disclosure). 152 Price, 474 F.2d at 1225 ; see also Peterson, 2019 WL 4493494 , at *5 (“Despite recordation, the secrecy of grand jury proceedings will still be protected by

12023–2023
Jewell v. Division of Social Services green
del · 1979
1 sentence

2014Jan. 5, 1996). 7 Id. 8 Jewell v. Div. of Social Servs., 401 A.2d 88 (Del. 1979). 4 other paragraphs of Rule 60.9 The movant must demonstrate a showing of “extraordinary circumstances.”10 “Rule 60(b)(6) is a ‘grand reservoir of equitable power to do justice in a particular case.’”11 “Like the other provisions of Rule 60(b), the interest of justice provision is addressed to the Court's sound discretion.”12 The Superior Court has held that “[d]espite the broad power inherent in the provision, the Court must, of course, identify a valid reason to grant relief from a judgment, and must recognize th

12014–2014

Where else courts name it

NY 43 (1988–2026) NJ 33 (1999–2025) PA 6 (2005–2020) DE 5 (1985–2026) WI 4 (1996–2024) NM 3 (2002–2012) UT 3 (1997–2023) MD 3 (1976–1985) ME 3 (1999–2014) WA 2 (1989–2019) AL 2 (1996–2012) TX 2 (2004–2018) CO 2 (2010–2024)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check