Parisi v. State Farm Mutual Auto.

2 Citing cases

  1. Brown v. Arnold

    K19C-09-035 JJC (Del. Super. Ct. Jan. 5, 2023)

    Namely, he testified that spasms "could go either way," meaning they could be either an objective or subjective finding.See Parisi v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 2010 WL 4139289, at *1 (Del. Super. Oct. 18, 2010) (recognizing, that based upon a doctor's testimony, muscle spasms qualify as "objective findings beyond the control of a patient," which in turn supported a new trial in an uncontested liability, zero-dollar verdict case). Ct. Ex. 1, at 19.

  2. Powell v. AmGuard Ins. Co.

    C.A. No. K17C-11-003 JJC (Del. Super. Ct. Mar. 2, 2020)   Cited 6 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding Delaware Courts have used Gore as a guidepost for evaluating punitive damages

    See Amisial v. Scott, 2018 WL 3409915, at *2 (Del. Super. July 12, 2018) (explaining that Delaware case law repeatedly references an "inexorably intertwined" standard for determining whether part or all of the previously tried issues should be retried); Parisi v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2010 WL 4139289, at *2 (Del. Super. Oct. 18, 2010) (requiring both the derivative and primary claims of a case to be retried); Smith v. Lawson, 2006 WL 258310, at *8 (Del. Super. Jan. 23, 2006) (granting a new trial only as to damages where there was no showing that liability was "inexorably intertwined" with damages).