From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rose v. Sears, Roebuck Co.

Supreme Court of Delaware
Feb 23, 1996
676 A.2d 906 (Del. 1996)

Summary

denying Mr. Sanders's appeal of denial of motion for postconviction relief, in which he argued violations of his rights regarding various stages of the photographic lineups

Summary of this case from Sanders v. Dep't of Justice

Opinion

Nos. 371, 1995, 390, 1995.

February 23, 1996.

Appeal from and Citation (if reported) Superior (Kent) CA 94C-03-024, 668 A.2d 782.


DECISIONS WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINIONS


AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Rose v. Sears, Roebuck Co.

Supreme Court of Delaware
Feb 23, 1996
676 A.2d 906 (Del. 1996)

denying Mr. Sanders's appeal of denial of motion for postconviction relief, in which he argued violations of his rights regarding various stages of the photographic lineups

Summary of this case from Sanders v. Dep't of Justice

stating in dicta that Delaware's "accident" statute of limitations "does not begin to run until the claimant, as a reasonable person, should recognize the nature, seriousness, and probable compensable character of the injury"

Summary of this case from Brunell v. Wildwood Crest Police Dept
Case details for

Rose v. Sears, Roebuck Co.

Case Details

Full title:Rose v. Sears, Roebuck Co

Court:Supreme Court of Delaware

Date published: Feb 23, 1996

Citations

676 A.2d 906 (Del. 1996)

Citing Cases

Toll Bros., Inc. v. Considine

The Superior Court denied Toll Brothers' motion for partial summary judgment. Relying upon Seither v. The…

Zoucha v. Touch of Class Lounge

Accord, May Dept. Stores Co., supra; Merrill, supra. Based on that reasoning, the majority of courts to have…