Sukel v. Eisel

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE OWEN SUKEL 1, Respondent Below, Appellant, v. JOY EISEL, Petitioner Below, Appellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 158, 2019 Court Below: Family Court of the State of Delaware File No. CK18-03019 Petition No. 18-35668 Submitted: February 28, 2020 Decided: April 21, 2020 Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; TRAYNOR and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Justices. ORDER After careful consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, we find it evident that the judgment of the Family Court should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons assigned in the Family Court’s well-reasoned March 14, 2019 order, which affirmed the Commissioner’s order granting the appellee’s petition for a protection from abuse order. The Family Court did not abuse its discretion in 1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d). accepting the Commissioner’s order, 2 and the appellant’s allegation of bias on the part of either the Family Court or the Commissioner is not supported by the record. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family Court is AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Tamika R. Montgomery-Reeves Justice 2 See King v. Booker, 2015 WL 4985367, at *2 (“If the Family Court has correctly applied the law, our standard of review is abuse of discretion.”). 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.