Click on the below to read Delaware Case Laws for the following years: <\/strong>In Raymond v. McGriff<\/b><\/i>, 2012 WL 1641648 (D.Del. May 4, 2012) an inmate sued two bondsmen to recover funds the inmate’s wife allegedly paid the bondsmen. The court dismissed the suit because, among other reasons, the bondsmen did not act under color of state law as required by 42 U.S.C. §1983. The court stated, “Defendants are private individuals engaged in the bail bondsman trade. Quite simply, they are not “clothed with the authority of state law.”<\/p>\n American Funding Services v. State<\/i><\/b>, 2012 WL 540927 (Del. February 21, 2012) affirmed the Superior Court decision reported at 2011 WL 3689250 (Del.Super. August 23, 2011). The Court emphasized that the petitioner had not appealed the decision of the Justice of the Peace Court. On a petition for certiorari, the Superior Court was limited to consideration of errors of law, jurisdiction, and whether there is an adequate record for review. Here the Superior Court correctly dismissed the petition. The defendant failed to appear, therefore forfeiture was required. The Justice of the Peace court had jurisdiction over the defendant, and the record was adequate for review and showed no irregularity in the proceedings.<\/p>\n In American Funding Services v. State<\/b><\/i>, Case No. S11A-04-006 (Del.Super. August 23, 2011) the defendant failed to appear and the bond was forfeited. The Justice of the Peace Court (JPC) ordered that if the defendant was brought before the court within 30 days the court would consider a motion to set aside the forfeiture. Neither the defendant nor the surety appeared within the 30 days, but law enforcement located the defendant in jail in Maryland over a year later and arrested him. The surety sought review in the Superior Court of the JPC’s bail forfeiture. The State made several procedural objections which the Court rejected, but on the merits the Court affirmed the JPC forfeiture order. The surety represented that it was “the sole cause of presentation of the Defendant in Court” but the record showed otherwise. The Court found that the surety had not shown illegal proceedings or an error of law and denied its request for relief.<\/p>\n In State of Delaware v. Jefferson<\/i><\/b>, 2003 WL 22931392 (Del Common Pleas October 10, 2003) the defendant failed to appear and her bond was forfeited. A few days later she was brought before the court. The court denied a motion to vacate the forfeiture because no evidence was presented to show that the bondsman made any effort to locate the defendant and return her to the court.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Delaware Case Laws Click on the below to read Delaware Case Laws for the following years: 2012 2011 2003 Delaware Case Law 2012 In Raymond v. McGriff, 2012 WL 1641648 (D.Del. May 4, 2012) an inmate sued two bondsmen to recover funds the inmate’s wife… <\/p>\n
\n2012<\/a>
\n2011<\/a>
\n2003<\/a><\/p>\nDelaware Case Law 2012<\/h3>\n
Delaware Case Law 2011<\/h3>\n
Delaware Case Law 2003<\/h3>\n