Opinion ID: 1474342
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Summary Judgment Appellate Review Standard

Text: The issue on appeal is whether London was entitled to summary judgment. In an appeal from the entry of summary judgment by the Superior Court, the standard of appellate review is not deferential; it is de novo. This Court's most complete and authoritative pronouncement regarding the proper standard of appellate review in a summary judgment context was set forth in the following extract from Merrill v. Crothall-American, Inc., Del.Supr., 606 A.2d 96, 100 (1992). Where, as here, appellate review is directed to the granting of summary judgment in the face [of] the non-movant's claim that factual disputes exist, no ... deference is warranted. This Court is thus free to determine, de novo, whether the record reflects the existence of material factual disputes. From an appellate perspective, a decision granting summary judgment over the objection of the non-movant, does not, strictly speaking, present for review factual findings but rather presents the legal conclusion that there is no factual bar to the determination of the legal merit of the movant's position. Since that determination is made on a paper record we are free to draw our own inferences as to the legal significance of such evidence. Given the same record, the Court is as institutionally competent to discern the existence of factual disputes as is the trial court. Id. Cf. Arnold v. Society for Savings Bancorp, Inc., Del.Supr., 650 A.2d 1270 (1994).