Case Title: Atonsah v. Hackett

Citation: 

Docket Number: 624, 2006

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2007-03-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ALEX B. ATONSAH, 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 624, 2006 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below—Superior Court   
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware in and 
v. 
 
 
 
§ 
for New Castle County 
 
 
 
 
§ 
JIMMY HACKETT and   
 
§ 
BARBARA HACKETT,  
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Defendants Below, 
 
 
§ 
C.A. No. 04C-11-209 
 
Appellees.  
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: February 16, 2007  
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
March 15, 2007 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
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 
 
2
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).