Atonsah v. Hackett

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ALEX B. ATONSAH, § § § § § § § § § § § § Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. JIMMY HACKETT and BARBARA HACKETT, Defendants Below, Appellees. No. 624, 2006 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County C.A. No. 04C-11-209 Submitted: February 16, 2007 Decided: March 15, 2007 Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices. ORDER This 15th day of March 2007, the Court has considered the opening brief filed by the plaintiff-appellant, Alex B. Atonsah ( Atonsah ), and the motion to affirm filed by the defendants-appellees, Jimmy Hackett and Barbara Hackett ( the Hacketts ). The Court has concluded that this appeal should be affirmed on the basis of the Superior Court s well-reasoned decision dated October 31, 2006. In the absence of expert testimony supporting Atonsah s claim as to damages, it is manifest that the Superior Court properly granted the Hacketts motion for summary judgment.1 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is granted. The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Randy J. Holland Justice 1 Accord Reybold Group, Inc. v. Chemprobe Tech., Inc., 721 A.2d 1267, 1270-71 (Del. 1998); Burkhart v. Davies, 602 A.2d 56, 60 (Del. 1991). 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.