Nevins v. Bryan, et al.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE RAPHAEL F. NEVINS, Plaintiff BelowAppellant, v. GEORGE BRYAN, DEAN WHITLA, WILLIAM SCHULER, CAROLYN TINKER, VICKI IRVING, and THE CENTER FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF DISTANCE EDUCATION IN RURAL AMERICA, a corporation, Defendants BelowAppellees. § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § No. 60, 2006 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Sussex County C.A. No. 05C-07-041 Submitted: March 27, 2006 Decided: May 18, 2006 Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and RIDGELY, Justices. ORDER This 18th day of May 2006, upon consideration of the appellant s opening brief and the appellee s motion to affirm, the Court finds it manifest on the face of the opening brief that the appeal is without merit under Supreme Court Rule 25(a). The Superior Court did not err in dismissing Nevins complaint for failure to state a claim for malicious prosecution. Accordingly, we conclude that the judgment below should be affirmed on the basis of, and for the reasons stated in, the Superior Court s decision dated September 8, 2005 and its order denying reargument dated January 5, 2006. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Myron T. Steele Chief Justice 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.