104 A.3d 817, 821 (Del. 2014) (citing M.S. v. State, 2012 WL 6765557 at *2 (Del. Fam. Ct. Dec. 21, 2012)).
Bd. of Nursing v. Gillespie , 41 A.3d 423, 427 (Del. 2012).Fuller v. State , 104 A.3d 817, 821 (Del. 2014).Salzberg v. Sciabacucchi , 227 A.3d 102, 113 (Del. 2020) (quoting Boilermakers Loc. 154 Ret. Fund v. Chevron Corp. , 73 A.3d 934, 950 (Del.
Fuller v. State, 104 A.3d 817, 821 (Del. 2014).
See Bridgeville Rifle, 176 A.3d at 652; Hazout, 134 A.3d at 286-87 & nn.42-44; Baker, 720 A.2d at 1144.See, e.g., Fuller v. State, 104 A.3d 817, 822 (Del. 2014) (reasoning that where, as here, the General Assembly removes certain words from a statute and then inserts different words in their place, the resulting meaning is presumptively intentional); Giuricich v. Emtrol Corp., 449 A.2d 232, 238 (Del. 1982) (holding that there is "no room" for judicial rewording of an unambiguous statute).Monceaux, 51 A.3d at 477.