POE v. POE

3 Citing cases

  1. O'Conner v. O'Conner

    98 A.3d 130 (Del. 2014)   Cited 2 times

    Tsipouras v. Tsipouras, 677 A.2d 493, 495 (Del.1996).Poe v. Poe, 2005 WL 1076524, at *2 (Del. May 6, 2005). Upon review of the record, we conclude that the Family Court abused its discretion in denying the Mother's motion to reopen the judgment dismissing her custody petition.

  2. O'Conner v. O'Conner

    No. 59, 2014 (Del. Jul. 24, 2014)

    Tsipouras v. Tsipouras, 677 A.2d 493, 495 (Del. 1996). Poe v. Poe, 2005 WL 1076524, at *2 (Del. May 6, 2005). Upon review of the record, we conclude that the Family Court abused its discretion in denying the Mother's motion to reopen the judgment dismissing her custody petition.

  3. Cohen v. State ex rel. Stewart

    89 A.3d 65 (Del. 2014)   Cited 27 times
    Noting that "Delaware has not yet determined the standing of a stockholder to oppose a delinquency petition," but that "[j]urisdictions that have considered the issue have typically held that stockholders do not have standing to intervene in a delinquency proceeding," and that the First Intervention Ruling "held that as a general matter, stockholders do not have any official role as parties in a delinquency proceeding"

    The standard of review on a motion for re-argument is abuse of discretion. Poe v. Poe, 872 A.2d 960 (Del.2005); Lilly v. State, 649 A.2d 1055, 1059 (Del.1994). There was uncontradicted evidence in the record that Cohen had interfered with the Commissioner, and that Cohen had used IDG to do so. It was logical for the Court of Chancery to conclude that it was important to preserve the Sanctions Order to prevent Cohen from using IDG to interfere again.