Deputy v. Welch, et al.

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY KENNETH T. DEPUTY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) DR. CONLAN, JAMES WELCH, ) and THOMAS CARROLL, ) ) Defendants. ) C.A. No. 07C-01-202 MMJ Submitted: February 16, 2012 Decided: April 12, 2012 On Plaintiff Kenneth T. Deputy s Motion for Reargument DENIED ORDER Kenneth T. Deputy, Plaintiff, Pro Se JOHNSTON, J. 1. By Order dated January 31, 2012, the Court denied plaintiff s fourth Motion for Appointment of Counsel. 2. Plaintiff Kenneth T. Deputy has moved for reargument. Attached to his motion are three letters, reflecting unsuccessful attempts by plaintiff to obtain private counsel. 3. The purpose of moving for reargument is to seek reconsideration of findings of fact, conclusions of law, or judgment of law.1 Reargument usually will be denied unless the moving party demonstrates that the Court overlooked a precedent or legal principle that would have a controlling effect, or that it has misapprehended the law or the facts in a manner affecting the outcome of the decision. A motion for reargument should not be used merely to rehash the arguments already decided by the court. 2 4. The Court has reviewed and considered plaintiff s motion and the additional letters. These submissions do not provide a basis for the Court to alter its opinion. Further, the Court did not overlook a controlling precedent or legal 1 Hessler, Inc. v. Farrell, 260 A.2d 701, 702 (1969). 2 Wilmington Trust Co. v. Nix, Del. Super., 2002 WL 356371, Witham, J. (Feb. 21, 2002); Whitsett v. Capital School District, Del. Super., C.A. No. 97C-04-032 Vaughn, J. (Jan. 28, 1999); Monsanto Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., Del. Super., C.A. No. 88-JA-118, Ridgeley, P.J. (Jan. 14, 1994). 1 principle, or misapprehend the law or the facts in a manner affecting the outcome of the decision. THEREFORE, Plaintiff s Motion for Reargument is hereby DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ M M Johnston ary . The Honorable Mary M. Johnston 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.