Opinion
No. 85, 1999.
June 24, 1999.
Appeal from the Superior Court, Kent County, CA 98A-01-004.
AFFIRMED
Unpublished Opinion is below.
WILLIAM P. INGRAM and MARGARET ANNE INGRAM, Defendants Below-Appellants, v. DELAWARE REAL ESTATE COMMISSION, Plaintiff Below-Appellee. No. 85, 1999. Supreme Court of Delaware. Submitted: June 16, 1999. Decided: June 24, 1999.
Court Below — Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Kent County, C.A. No. 98A-01-004.
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices.
ORDER
This 24th day of June 1999, upon consideration of the appellants' opening brief and the appellee's motion to affirm, it appears to the Court that:
(1) This is an appeal from a Superior Court order affirming the Delaware Real Estate Commission's decision to revoke the appellants' real estate licenses. The Commission conducted a hearing on May 8, 1997 at which the Ingrams appeared but later refused to participate. Based on the uncontroverted evidence, the Commission found that the Ingrams had violated four statutory requirements and one Commission Rule. Among these violations, the Commission concluded that the Ingrams had engaged in conduct constituting improper, fraudulent, or dishonest dealing. The Commission revoked the Ingrams' licenses in accordance with its authority under 24 Del. C. § 2914(a)(5).
(2) This Court's appellate review of the decision of an administrative board is limited. Our function in this case is to determine whether the Commission's decision is supported by substantial evidence and is free from legal error. Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Based on the record presented, we find that there was substantial evidence to support the Commission's decision. Moreover, we do not find any error or abuse in the Commission's decision to revoke the Ingrams' licenses.
(3) Consequently, we find it manifest on the face of the Ingrams' opening brief that this appeal is without merit for the reasons stated by the Superior Court in its well-reasoned decision dated February 23, 1999.
See 24 Del. C. § 2912(a)(2), (10), (12).
Stoltz Management Co. v. Consumer Affairs Bd., Del. Supr., 616 A.2d 1205, 1208 (1992).
Streett v. State, Del. Supr., 669 A.2d 9, 11 (1995).
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the appellee's motion to affirm is GRANTED. The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
s/ CAROLYN BERGER,
Justice