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.

Hajali v. Daller

Superior Court of Delaware

November 8, 2017

ZOHRA HAJALI Plaintiff,
v.
OFFICER ANDREW W. DALLER individually and in his official capacity as a NEW CASTLE COUNTY, DELAWARE POLICE OFFICER Defendant.

          Robert C. McDonald, Esq.

          Stephen P. Norman, Esq.

          ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL

          Eric M. Davis, Judge.

         Upon consideration of the Motion for a New Trial (the "Motion") filed by Plaintiff Zohra Hajali; the Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for a New Trial ("Response") filed by Defendants Officer Andrew Daller; and the entire record of this civil action:

         1. This is a civil action arising out of an arrest and detainment of Zohra Hajali. Ms. Hajali sued Officer Andrew Daller for: (1) violation of Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments for fabrication of evidence; (2) violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983 based on Fourth Amendment unlawful detention; (3) malicious prosecution; (4) state malicious prosecution; (5) wanton negligence county and municipal tort claims act.[1]

         2. The Court held a five-day jury trial. Ms. Hajali called six witnesses and testified herself. Officer Daller called two witnesses and testified himself. Given the claims asserted and the evidence presented at trial, the credibility of witnesses was an important aspect of the case. The jury found in favor of Officer Daller.[2]

         3. Ms. Hajali timely filed a Motion for a New Trial (the "Motion").[3] In the Motion, Ms. Hajali argues that she did not have a fair trial and was severely prejudiced because:

1. The Judge was unfair and intimidated plaintiff's counsel and he is ruling throughout the case bias against the plaintiff.
2. The judge has made comments, engaged in conduct, and made rulings that seem to be biased against the plaintiff and favor defendant.
3. The court rulings regarding the plaintiff's evidence were erroneous, unfair and prejudicial.
4. The judge had erred in ruling that the evidence was inadmissible.
5. The Court erred in sustaining objections to questions addressed to a witness.
6. The opposing counsel misleading the court, the jury, and ...

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.