DEL Sample Clauses

DEL. Requirements for the CRIOS – v12 [January, 2020]

DEL. C. §2322E(d), THE “EMPLOYER’S MODIFIED DUTY AVAILABILITY REPORT” SHALL ACCOMPANY THIS AGREEMENT AND THE COMPLETED REPORT SHALL BE FORWARDED TO THE HEALTHCARE PROVIDER/PHYSICIAN MOST RESPONSIBLE FOR TREATMENT WITHIN 14 DAYS. THE INSURANCE CARRIER FOR AN INSURED EMPLOYER SHALL BE INDEPENDENTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING A COMPLETED REPORT OF MODIFIED-DUTY JOBS TO THE PROVIDER/PHYSICIAN.

DEL. C. § 6105(c) (“Upon the commencement of the action, the plaintiff need join as defendants only the persons having or claiming an interest in the property whose names are known, but prior to any hearing involving the determination of compensation to be paid, the plaintiff shall add as defendants all persons having or claiming an interest in the property whose names can be ascertained by a search of the records to the extent commonly made by competent searchers of title….”). DelDOT filed its amended complaint, the Shahins did not file an answer. Instead, the Shahins filed four motions: one demanding that DelDOT provide proof that it was condemning other properties in connection with the highway reconstruction project; one asking the court to order that they be compensated for “two-year illegal judicial harassment, intimidation, and gross violations of their constitutional rights;” one demanding that the DOJ open an investigation into whether ▇▇▇▇▇▇’s attorneys and the Superior Court judge were engaged in racketeering; and one asking the court to charge ▇▇▇▇▇▇’s attorneys with perjury. None of these documents appeared to be an answer to ▇▇▇▇▇▇’s amended complaint. (12) At the August 24, 2022 status hearing, the Superior Court expressly found that the motions (with the exception of the first, which the Shahins withdrew) violated all four requirements of Superior Court Civil Rule 11(b). We agree with the Superior Court’s conclusion. To the extent that any of the documents set forth a legally recognized objection to the condemnation action or ▇▇▇▇▇▇’s estimation of just compensation, the objection was not a “plain” statement; to the contrary, it was buried under baseless claims of misconduct lodged against the judge and ▇▇▇▇▇▇’s attorneys. The Superior Court, in the exercise of great patience, granted the Shahins ten days to answer the amended complaint. They did not comply. Given these circumstances, the Superior Court did not abuse its discretion when it found that the Shahins had failed to file an answer to ▇▇▇▇▇▇’s amended complaint. (13) Turning to the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇’ argument that the default judgment should be set aside because the trial court and ▇▇▇▇▇▇’s attorneys engaged in racketeering, there is no factual basis for the Shahins’ conspiracy theory. (14) Finally, the Shahins first raised a semblance of an argument concerning the amount of compensation to which they were entitled after DelDOT filed its motion for default judgment based on their failure to file ...

DEL. C. § 3528 permits a trustee who has authority to invade the principal of a trust to appoint all or part of such principal in favor of a second trust, whether or not the second trust was created under the same instrument as the first, if the second trust has only beneficiaries who are proper objects of the exercise of that power; and

DEL. C. § 2708. Each of the parties hereto hereby irrevocably and unconditionally agrees (a) to be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of the State of Delaware and of the federal courts sitting in the State of Delaware, and (b)(1) to the extent such party is not otherwise subject to service of process in the State of Delaware, to appoint and maintain an agent in the State of Delaware as such party’s agent for acceptance of legal process, and (2) that, to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, service of process may also be made on such party by prepaid certified mail with a proof of mailing receipt validated by the United States Postal Service constituting evidence of valid service, and that service made pursuant to (b)(1) or (2) above shall, to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, have the same legal force and effect as if served upon such party personally within the State of Delaware.