Legal Opinion
Petition of State
Supreme Court of Delaware
Decided March 27, 1998No. 270, 1997PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HARTNETT, Justice.
The State seeks the issuance by this Court of a writ of mandamus directing the Family Court to set aside its award of attorney’s fees and costs arising out of a motion to compel the discovery of evidence required to be produced by the State under Brady v. Maryland. 1 While we do not approve of the Deputy Attorney General’s failure to promptly and voluntarily produce all properly discoverable Brady material, we find that the Family Court is not authorized to award attorney’s fees and costs for a violation of the rules of discovery. We therefore grant the petition of the State…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness SocietySupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Roche v. Evaporated Milk Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Stroud v. GraceSupreme Court of Delaware · 1992
- In Re Bordley's Petition for Writ of MandamusSupreme Court of Delaware · 1988
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Aspen Advisors LLC v. United Artists Theatre Co.Supreme Court of Delaware · 2004
- Gannett Co., Inc. v. Board of ManagersSupreme Court of Delaware · 2003
- Delaware Board of Nursing v. GillespieSupreme Court of Delaware · 2012
- Hughes v. City of HartfordDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2000
- CIBC Bank USA v. Ryan Barker and BERA Brand Management, Inc.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 2026
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.