Case Title: Reeder v. Dept. of Insurance

Citation: 

Docket Number: 147, 2006

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2006-10-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ROBERT P. REEDER, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF 
INSURANCE, DEFENSIVE 
DRIVING CREDENTIAL 
COMMITTEE, and DEPARTMENT 
OF JUSTICE, 
 
Defendants Below- 
Appellees. 
§ 
§  No. 147, 2006 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Court of Chancery 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. 1553-N 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: July 28, 2006 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: October 2, 2006 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 2nd day of October 2006, upon consideration of the parties’ briefs 
and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
 The appellant, Robert Reeder, filed this appeal from a decision 
of the Court of Chancery granting summary judgment to the Department of 
Insurance and the Defensive Driving Credential Committee on eight counts 
of Reeder’s complaint and dismissing the complaint against the Department 
of Justice.  The trial court granted summary judgment to Reeder on one 
 
2
claim and ordered the correction of the minutes of the DDCC’s February 11, 
2005 meeting.   
(2) 
 Reeder raises five claims in his opening brief on appeal.  First, 
he asserts that the trial judge abused his discretion by failing to recuse 
himself from Reeder’s case.  Second, Reeder contends that the trial court 
erred in holding that Reeder was aware of the provisions of the Freedom of 
Information Act (FOIA) and thus was bound by FOIA’s sixty-day 
limitations period.  Third, Reeder asserts that the trial court erred in 
dismissing his claims against the Department of Justice, which were based 
on erroneous legal advice provided by the DOJ to the DDCC and resulted in 
alleged FOIA violations.  Fourth, Reeder contends that the trial court erred 
in holding that many of Reeder’s claims were moot given the abolition of the 
DDCC in February 2006.  Finally, Reeder claims that the trial court erred in 
holding that the DDCC did not violate any of Reeder’s rights by limiting his 
presentation to five minutes at the DDCC’s July 12, 2005 meeting. 
(3) 
After careful consideration of the parties’ respective positions 
on appeal, we find it manifest that the judgment below should be affirmed 
on the basis of, and for the reasons set forth in, the Court of Chancery’s 
well-reasoned, fifty-two page opinion.  We find no error in the trial court’s 
rulings of law and no abuse of the trial court’s discretion. 
 
3
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Court of Chancery is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice