1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. A.2d
  4. 499 A.2d
  5. 499 A.2d 1175 (1985)
 

DOE v. CATES

499 A.2d 1175 (1985)

Jane DOE, in her own behalf and as Next Friend and Guardian of Mary Doe, Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. Harry CATES, Director of the Division of Social Services, the Division of Social Services, the Family Court of the State of Delaware, and the Honorable David P. Buckson, Defendants Below, Appellees. Frank J. BEDO, Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Defendant Below, Appellee. Ann D. LAIRD, Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, et al., Defendants Below, Appellees. Kenneth MASTEN, Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Defendant Below, Appellee. Saxton C. LAMBERTSON, Mary L. Moore, Delbert G. Lambertson and Betty Ann Wharton, Heirs of Gilbert S. Lambertson, deceased, and as Executors of the Estate of Clara L. Lambertson, deceased, Plaintiffs Below, Appellants, v. STATE of Delaware, Defendant Below, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Delaware.

Decided: September 26, 1985.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

William E. Moore and Gary A. Myers, of Community Legal Aid Soc., Inc., Georgetown, Philip E. Herrmann, Pro Bono Counsel, Wilmington, and John J. Schmittinger, Pro Bono Counsel, of Schmittinger & Rodriguez, Dover, for appellant Doe.

Gary W. Aber, Wilmington, for appellant Bedo.

Richard D. Allen (argued), and Jeffrey S. Welch of Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell, Wilmington, for appellant Laird.

David C. McBride (argued), of Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor, Wilmington, for appellant Masten.

Clifford B. Hearn, Jr. (argued), Wilmington, for appellants Lambertson.

Fred S. Silverman, State Sol., Richard E. Fairbanks (argued), John A. Parkins, Jr., Richmond L. Williams, James J. Hanley, Thomas L. LaPenta and Deborah A. Blom, Wilmington, Deputy Attys. Gen., for appellees.

Before McNEILLEY, HORSEY and CHRISTIE, JJ.

CHRISTIE, Justice:

This opinion results from the consolidation of appeals from five Superior Court decisions. While the underlying facts in each case are different, all five cases present the same basic issue: Does the State of Delaware continue to have the right to assert its sovereign immunity as a valid defense to a tort action brought against the State where the State has failed to provide itself with insurance protection?

Each appellant has asserted a...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases