Simon v. Beebe Medical Center, Inc.

2 Citing cases

  1. Beard Research, Inc. v. Kates (In re Kates)

    485 B.R. 86 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2012)   Cited 41 times
    Holding that breach of fiduciary duty constituted willful and malicious injury for purposes of § 523

    Recent case law suggests that the standard of proof for awarding punitive damages under Delaware law is based upon a preponderance of the evidence. See Tumlinson v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 2010 WL 8250792, at *3 n. 8, 2010 Del.Super. LEXIS 619, at *7–8 n. 8 (Del.Super.Ct. July 23, 2010) (stating standard for punitive damages is preponderance of the evidence); Simon v. Beebe Med. Ctr., 2004 WL 692647, 2004 Del.Super. LEXIS 76 (Del.Super.Ct. Mar. 15, 2004) (declining to apply higher clearing and convincing standard to issue of punitive damages); see also Delaware Pattern Jury Instructions § 22.27 (applying preponderance of the evidence standard).Although I do not find the Chancery Court opinion explicit on this point, I have assumed that the Chancery Court applied a preponderance of the evidence standard of proof rather than a “clear and convincing evidence” standard.

  2. Tumlinson v. Advanced Micro Devices

    C.A. No. 08C-07-106 FSS (Del. Super. Ct. Jul. 23, 2010)   Cited 4 times
    Finding under Rule 20 severance of claims was appropriate because plaintiffs cause of injury was drastically different.

    Marks v. Messick Gray Constr., Inc., 2000 WL 703657, at *2 (Del. Super. Apr. 18, 2000) (Ridgely, P.J.). See also Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code § 41.003 (2007) (Texas standard for determining punitive damages is clear and convincing evidence); cf. Simon v. Beebe Med. Ctr., Inc., 2004 WL 692647, at *1 (Del. Super. Mar. 15, 2004) (Del Pesco, J.) (Delaware standard for determining punitive damages is preponderance of the evidence).See Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Havner, 953 S.W.2d 706, 718-24 (Tex. 1997).