Title: Shearin v. Town of Elsmere

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
K. KAY SHEARIN, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
TOWN OF ELSMERE, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 471, 2001 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. 99C-10-181 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: November 20, 2002 
 
 
 
 
  Decided:   December 19, 2002 
 
Before WALSH, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 19th day of December 2002, upon consideration of the briefs on 
appeal and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The plaintiff-appellant, K. Kay Shearin, filed an appeal from 
the Superior Court’s August 31, 2001 order granting summary judgment in 
favor of the defendant-appellee, Town of Elsmere.  We find no merit to the 
appeal.  Accordingly, we AFFIRM. 
 
(2) 
In October 1999, Shearin filed a complaint in the Superior 
Court claiming that the Town of Elsmere had “[taken her] property without 
due process of law” and seeking “compensatory and punitive damages.”  
Specifically, Shearin alleged that, in or about June of 1999, the Town of 
 
2
Elsmere, without notice, came into the side and back portions of her yard 
with earth moving equipment, destroying plant material, removing 
protective cinder blocks and damaging her chain link fence.  Shearin further 
alleged that she knew the Town of Elsmere was responsible for the damage 
because one of her neighbors told Shearin that she saw agents of the Town 
of Elsmere destroying Shearin’s property.   
 
(3) 
In August 2000, Shearin filed a motion for leave to amend her 
complaint.  The motion, which was unopposed, was granted by the Superior 
Court.  In her amended complaint, Shearin alleged that, on June 7, 2000, she 
herself witnessed three agents of the Town of Elsmere destroying plants 
growing on and inside of her chain link fence.1  
 
(4) 
Approximately one year later, following written discovery and 
Shearin’s deposition, the Town of Elsmere filed a motion for summary 
judgment, which Shearin opposed.  At the close of the hearing on the 
motion, the Superior Court granted the motion for summary judgment.2     
                                                          
 
1 Shearin further alleged that, in retaliation for the filing of her complaint, the Town of 
Elsmere caused its agents to bring criminal charges against her and imprison her in 
violation of her constitutional rights and her rights under state and federal laws, including 
42 U.S.C. § 1983.  Because Shearin did not address this issue in her briefs on appeal, it is 
deemed to be waived as a ground for appeal and will not be addressed by this Court.  
Murphy v. State, 632 A.2d 1150, 1152 (Del. 1993). 
2 SUPER. CT. CIV. R. 56. 
 
3
 
(5) 
This Court reviews the Superior Court’s decision granting 
summary judgment de novo.3  Summary judgment is appropriate only if 
there  are no genuine issues of material fact, and the moving party is entitled 
to judgment as a matter of law.4  In order to withstand a motion for summary 
judgment, the plaintiff is required to present some evidence, either direct or 
circumstantial, to support all of the elements of the claim.5  A motion for 
summary judgment is properly granted against a plaintiff who fails to make 
a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to the 
plaintiff’s case, and on which the plaintiff will bear the burden of proof at 
trial.6 
 
(6) 
The Superior Court properly granted the Town of Elsmere’s 
motion for summary judgment.  Shearin’s claim that the Town of Elsmere’s 
presence on her property and/or destruction of her plants constituted a 
“taking without due process” fails as a matter of law since the record is 
devoid of any evidence that the Town of Elsmere sought to appropriate any 
                                                          
 
3 Telxon Corp. v. Meyerson, 802 A.2d 257, 262 (Del. 2002). 
4 Id. 
5 Reybold Group, Inc. v. Chemprobe Technologies, Inc., 721 A.2d 1267, 1270 (Del. 
1998). 
6 Id. at 1271(citing Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986)). 
 
4
portion of her land for its own use.7  Shearin’s claim that the Town of 
Elsmere damaged her plants in June of 1999 fails for the additional reason 
that there is no factual support for the claim.8  To the extent Shearin claims 
that the Town of Elsmere negligently destroyed plants in and around her 
property, any such claim fails as a matter of law since the Town of Elsmere 
is immune from such claims pursuant to the Delaware Tort Claims Act.9  To 
the extent Shearin claims that the Town of Elsmere is not entitled to 
immunity because it intentionally destroyed plants in and around her 
property, she has presented no facts in support of that claim.10  Finally, 
Shearin has failed to make any showing whatsoever of any damages incurred 
as a result of the alleged actions of the Town of Elsmere.11 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
                                                          
 
7 BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, “Eminent domain,” p. 470; “Inverse condemnation,” p. 740 
(5th ed. 1979).  Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. at 322. 
8 The bare allegation in Shearin’s complaint that a neighbor witnessed it is insufficient to 
withstand a motion for summary judgment.  Reybold Group, Inc. v. Chemprobe 
Technologies, Inc., 721 A.2d at 1270. 
9 DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 10, § 4010 et seq.(1999). 
10 Reybold Group, Inc. v. Chemprobe Technologies, Inc., 721 A.2d 1267, 1271 (Del. 
1988) (citing Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986)). 
11 Id. 
 
5
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice