(a) The Judges of the Superior Court, or a majority of them, may, from time to time, adopt and promulgate general rules which prescribe, establish and regulate the form, issuance and return of process and writs, the form and system of pleading, and all other practice and procedure with respect to the commencement, trial, hearing and determination of civil actions in the Superior Court.
(b) Such rules shall be for the purpose of securing the just and, so far as possible, the speedy and inexpensive determination of every such action. The rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right of any party, and they shall preserve the right of trial by jury as at common law and as declared by the statutes and Constitution of this State.
(c) The rules so adopted and promulgated, and all amendments thereof, shall, after they have taken effect, supersede all statutory provisions in conflict or inconsistent therewith.
(d) Any inconsistency or conflict between any rule promulgated under the authority of this section or prior law, and any of the provisions of this Code or other statute of this State dealing with practice or procedure in the Superior Court, shall be resolved in favor of such rule of court. Nothing in this Code, anything therein to the contrary notwithstanding, shall in any way limit, supersede or repeal any rule heretofore promulgated governing practice or procedure in civil actions in the Superior Court.
(e) As used in this section, the phrase “civil actions in the Superior Court” includes proceedings of every kind or character within the jurisdiction of that Court except criminal proceedings.
Code 1852,
§§
1921, 2301-2304;
27 Del. Laws, c. 270,
§
4;
Code 1915,
§§
3688, 3730, 4164-4166;
34 Del. Laws, c. 226;
Code 1935,
§§
4240, 4280, 4643-4645;
10 Del. C. 1953,
§
561;
Notes of Decisions
Gordy v. Preform Bldg. Components, Inc., 310 A.2d 893 (Del. Super. Ct. 1973).
“10 Del.C. §§ 561, 562. The Forms attached to the Rules will be considered to satisfy the requirements for practice and procedure in this Court.”
Scott v. Kay, 227 A.2d 572 (Del. 1967).
“The drafters of our rules may reasonably have thought that its subject matter exceeds the proper scope of rules of practice and enters the field of substantive law.”
M & M, Inc. v. Wade, 297 A.2d 403 (Del. Super. Ct. 1972).
“For example, such a grant of power has been provided for the Superior Court in 10 Del.C. § 561(d). That section provides that in case of a conflict between the Superior Court Rules and any other State statute, the conflict shall be resolved m favor of the Superior Court Rule.”
Mergenthaler v. Triumph Mortg. Corp. (Del. Super. Ct. 2018).
· cites it 3× “3 The Commissioner reasoned that the time period for refreshing a judgment was a procedural rule, rather than a substantive right, and 10 Del. C. § 561 therefore required the Court to resolve the inconsistency between Rule 69 and Section 5072 in favor of the rule.”
Imbragulio v. UIAB (Del. 2019).
· cites it 3× “9 statute “was specific in its direction as to ‘counting;’”15 (iii) the Williams holding contradicts the language of 10 Del. C. § 561, which permits the Superior Court to regulate practice and procedure through the adoption of rules; and (iv) the Superior Court had, on prior…”
Mergenthaler v. Triumph Mortg. Corp. (Del. Super. Ct. 2017).
· cites it 2× “Ultimate authority for the Superior Court to issue rules is found in 10 Del. C. § 561. The statute provides: Rules of Court in civil actions.”
Seaford Internal Med., LLC v. Sandoval (Del. Super. Ct. 2019).
· cites it 2× “The Williams determination was made in the face of 10 Del. C. §561 which allows this Court to regulate practice and procedure through adoption of rules which shall supercede all statutory provisions in conflict with the Court Rules.”
Mergenthaler v. Triumph Mortg. Corp. (Del. Super. Ct. 2019).
“And, 10 Del. C. § 561 allows the Superior Court to adopt rules of procedure and provides that such rules supersede conflicting state statutes unless the rules abridge, enlarge, or modify any party’s substantive rights.”
10 Del. C. § 561(a): 1 case
Imbragulio v. UIAB (Del. 2019).
“9 statute “was specific in its direction as to ‘counting;’”15 (iii) the Williams holding contradicts the language of 10 Del. C. § 561, which permits the Superior Court to regulate practice and procedure through the adoption of rules; and (iv) the Superior Court had, on prior…”
10 Del. C. § 561(b): 1 case
Mergenthaler v. Triumph Mortg. Corp. (Del. Super. Ct. 2018).
“3 The Commissioner reasoned that the time period for refreshing a judgment was a procedural rule, rather than a substantive right, and 10 Del. C. § 561 therefore required the Court to resolve the inconsistency between Rule 69 and Section 5072 in favor of the rule.”
10 Del. C. § 561(d): 2 cases
M & M, Inc. v. Wade, 297 A.2d 403 (Del. Super. Ct. 1972).
“For example, such a grant of power has been provided for the Superior Court in 10 Del.C. § 561(d). That section provides that in case of a conflict between the Superior Court Rules and any other State statute, the conflict shall be resolved m favor of the Superior Court Rule.”
Mergenthaler v. Triumph Mortg. Corp. (Del. Super. Ct. 2017).
“Ultimate authority for the Superior Court to issue rules is found in 10 Del. C. § 561. The statute provides: Rules of Court in civil actions.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.