Sullivan v. Mayor of Elsmere, 23 A.3d 128

The Town of Elsmere terminated Liam Sullivan from the Chief of Police position, prompting a Superior Court appeal.
The Panel held hearings and adopted Ordinances 509 and 510 to govern the termination process and the hearing procedures.
During proceedings, Sullivan sought recusal of Councilman Jaremchuk and challenged the procedural basis of the hearing.
Sullivan testified about alleged pressure and bias from Jaremchuk; the Panel did not recuse him, and votes were taken on five charges of termination.
The Superior Court found Sullivan established a prima facie bias by Jaremchuk but allowed the panel’s other votes to stand; the court upheld termination.
The Supreme Court reversed, holding that unrecused bias tainted the tribunal and entitled Sullivan to a new hearing without the biased member.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether bias by a panel member invalidates the hearing	Sullivan	Elsmere	Bias taints due process; new hearing required
Whether the remaining panel votes cure the bias error	Sullivan	Elsmere	No; cure ineffective; due process violated
Whether cross-appeal or law-of-the-case rules bar consideration of bias	Sullivan	Elsmere	Not outcome-determinative; rights to a new hearing prevail

Vann v. Town of Cheswold, 945 A.2d 1118 (Del. 2008) (presumption of impartiality and due process in administrative decisions)
Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U.S. 237 (U.S. 2008) (cross-appeal rule; party cannot benefit from another’s judgment absent cross-appeal)
Scharf v. Edgcomb, 864 A.2d 909 (Del. 2004) (law-of-the-case doctrine; exceptions when clearly in error or injustice)
Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35 (U.S. 1975) (bias in adjudicatory process violates due process; impartial tribunal essential)
Weedon v. State, 750 A.2d 521 (Del. 2000) (law-of-the-case concepts and related doctrine applied in state appeals)
Avallone v. State/Dept. of Health & Soc. Servs., 14 A.3d 566 (Del. 2011) (quoting and applying due process and impartiality standards)