From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

ALBU TRADING v. ALLEN FAMILY FOODS

Supreme Court of Delaware
Nov 22, 2002
822 A.2d 396 (Del. 2002)

Opinion

No. 487, 2001

Submitted: November 13, 2002

Decided: November 22, 2002

Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County C.A. No. 00C-05-131

Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and STEELE, Justices.


Appeal dismissed.

Unpublished opinion is below.

ALBU TRADING, INC., § Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. ALLEN FAMILY FOODS, INC., Defendant Below, Appellee. No. 487, 2001 Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. Submitted: November 13, 2002 Decided: November 22, 2002


ORDER


This 22nd day of November 2002, upon consideration of the briefs of the parties and oral argument, it appears to the Court that:

(1) This is an appeal from a Superior Court decision refusing to reopen a judgment under Superior Court Civil Rule 60(b)(2). The Superior Court ruled that the appellant had not been diligent in pursuing discovery in order to secure evidence later offered as "newly discovered." The standard of review of denial of a motion to reopen judgment under Rule 60(b)(2) is abuse of discretion. Bachtle v. Bachtle, 494 A.2d 1253, 1255-56 (Del. 1985).

(2) Upon consideration of the record, we conclude that the Superior Court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant relief to the appellant. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court as reflected in its decision of April 4, 2002.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court be, and the same hereby is,

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

ALBU TRADING v. ALLEN FAMILY FOODS

Supreme Court of Delaware
Nov 22, 2002
822 A.2d 396 (Del. 2002)
Case details for

ALBU TRADING v. ALLEN FAMILY FOODS

Case Details

Full title:ALBU TRADING, INC., § Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. ALLEN FAMILY FOODS…

Court:Supreme Court of Delaware

Date published: Nov 22, 2002

Citations

822 A.2d 396 (Del. 2002)

Citing Cases

Southerland v. Southerland

The movant also must demonstrate that the outcome of the action would be different if the motion were granted…

Adams-Hall v. Adams

The movant also must demonstrate that the outcome of the action would be different if the motion were granted…