Stull v. Neuberger.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY JOHN M. STULL, Defendant-below Appellant, v. THO MA S S. NEUB ERG ER, P .A., Plaintiff-below Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) C.A. No. 02A-05-005 HLA ) ) ) ) Date Submitted: March 31, 2003 Date Decided: June 16, 2003 ORDER U PON D EFENDANT-B ELOW A PPELLANT S M OTION TO A LTER AND A MEND M EMORANDUM O PINION D ATED F EBRUARY 28, 2003 DENIED John M . Stull, Esq., W ilmington, D elaware, A ttorney for A ppellant (pro se) - Defendant below. Martin D. Haverly, Esq., Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Appellee - Plaintiff below. ALFORD , J. Stull v. Neuberger C.A. No. 02A-05-005 HLA June 16, 2003 Page 2 This 16 th day of June 2003 upon review of the documents filed by the parties and the record belo w, it appea rs to the Co urt that: (1) On April 24, 2002, a decision for judgment of $5,000.00 was entered against Appellan t, and judgment in favor of Appellee concerning Appellant s counterclaim in the Court of Common Pleas. This decision was affirmed by the Superior Court on February 28, 2003. (2) Appellant com es now befo re the Court in order to alter or amend this Cou rt s February 28, 2003 decision. H owever, Appellant has only repeated his previous arguments. For example, Appellant argues that there was not substan tial evidence to support Appe llee s fees for his legal service s to Appe llant. This con tention wa s made in h is appeal of the April 24, 200 2 Cou rt of Co mmo n Pleas decisio n. Further, Appellant again argues that there is not enough evidence to support Appellee s fee for his services as it was a losing ef fort in the Third Circuit. Appellant s assertion that the fees should be dismissed or reduced because of the unsuccessful outcome is without merit. The C ourt consid ered all of the se argum ents in its prior decision and there is no need to revisit them. As such the Motion must be denied. Stull v. Neuberger C.A. No. 02A-05-005 HLA June 16, 2003 Page 3 For the forgoing reasons the Appellant s Motion to Alter and Amend Memorandum Opinion dated February 28, 2003, is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. _____________________________________ ALFORD , J. Original: Prothonotary s Office - Civil Division
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.
