Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Thorpe v. Ingram

Superior Court of Delaware, Kent

January 10, 2014

BETTY F. THORPE, Plaintiff,
v.
WILLIAM P. INGRAM, and MARGARET ANNE INGRAM, Defendants.

Submitted: November 6, 2013

Upon Consideration of Defendants' Motion for Reargument

Noel E. Primos, Esquire, Schmittinger & Rodriguez, Dover, Delaware for Plaintiff.

William P. Ingram, and Margaret Anne Ingram, Pro se.

ORDER

Young, J.

SUMMARY

For the reasons respectively set forth below, Defendants' Motion for Reargument is DENIED.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The facts regarding this matter are contained in the Court's Order of October 22, 2013, and are incorporated herein.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Pursuant to Civil Rule 59(e), a Motion for Reargument shall be filed within 5 days after service of the decision on which it is based; in which event, to be successful, the moving party must show that the Court has overlooked or misapplied a precedent or legal principles, or misapprehended the facts affecting the outcome.

DISCUSSION

In this Motion, Defendants have attempted to assert, for the first time, that a party is necessary to this action. Plaintiff's position is neither timely raised nor accurate. Bell vs. Fisher, 2012 Del.Super.LEXIS 241.

Plaintiff's arguments concerning the merits of the case present nothing which was factual matter, was misapprehended or misapplied. Hence, Defendants' various arguments on these asserted bases are without merit. Friends of Paladin vs. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.