 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| State v. Jones, Defendant ID No. 9911013398(R-1),
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, January 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 61(i)(5) motion for postconviction relief was denied, as no exception to the procedural bar was presented, the ineffective assistance of counsel claims lacked merit, and the sentencing judge was fully satisfied of defendant's competence, despite the fact that defendant was under medication at the time of his plea.
|
|||||
| Bennefield v. State, No. 0411014352,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, January 4, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was sufficient evidence to support defendant's conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs, in violation of Del. Code Ann. tit. 21, § 4177(a), where he had bloodshot, glassy eyes, he admitted to consuming alcohol, he failed the portable breathalyzer test, and he failed three out of four sobriety tests.
|
|||||
| Raider v. Sunderland, Civil Action No. 19357 NC,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, January 4, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A class representative overcame the presumption against awarding a separate bonus payment to him upon a showing of his extra efforts, time, and expertise, the large monetary benefit his efforts created for the class members, and the fact that he was a small shareholder; the bonus payment was based on his efforts and expertise.
|
|||||
| Ubiquitel Inc. v. Sprint Corp., Civil Action No. 1489-N, Civil Action No. 1518-N,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, January 4, 2006, Decided , January 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A declaratory judgment claim by wireless network affiliates against a newly merged network entity, asserting a claim of anticipatory breach of contract, was not ripe for adjudication where there was no present actual controversy, no particular hardship shown, and future developments in the field could moot the controversy.
|
|||||
| Del. Supermarkets, Inc. v. Muldoon, C.A. No. 05A-06-008 SCD,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, January 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly allowed claimant's partial disability benefits to continue, given the credible opinion by her primary care physician of 23 years that she remained totally disabled, failed approaches at therapy, and objective evidence of EMG examinations that revealed a worsening in her overall condition.
|
|||||
| Harrigan v. City of Wilmington, C.A. No. 05C-05-143 RRC,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, January 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Del. Code Ann. tit. 19, § 1101(a)(3), (a)(4), a city, as a political subdivision of Delaware, was excluded from the ambit of the Wage Payment and Collection Act, Del. Code Ann. tit. 19, §§ 1101-1115 (1995). An employee's Huffman claim suit against city seeking penalties for failure to pay workers' compensation benefits was dismissed.
|
|||||
| Nevins v. Bryan, C.A. No. 05C-07-041,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, January 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a court did not misapprehend the law or facts in deciding that plaintiff had failed to state a claim for malicious prosecution, plaintiff's motion to reargue the court's prior dismissal of the complaint and the denial of his motion to proceed in forma pauperis was denied pursuant to Del. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 59(e).
|
|||||
| Parker v. Brady, C.A. No. 05M-12-002-THG,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, January 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the production of records under the Delaware Freedom of Information Act, Del. Code Ann. tit. 29, § 10001 et seq., was dismissed as the request was not made upon the proper party under Del. Code Ann. tit. 29, § 10003(a) and the records were exempt from disclosure under Del. Code Ann. tit. 29, § 10002(g)(9).
|
|||||
| Shannon v. Meconi, C.A. No. 05A-07-002-PLA,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, January 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Termination of Medicaid benefits for a child diagnosed with cystic fibrosis violated due process, as no substantial evidence showed a change of circumstances allowing termination, and a hearing officer, on remand, did not obey instructions to hold a hearing on whether applicable law changed by merely adding a few paragraphs to his original opinion.
|
|||||
| Richard Y. Johnson & Son, Inc. v. Just-In Constr., Inc., C.A. No. 1735-S,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, January 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Contractor's motion to find defendants in contempt of court was granted, as defendants had actual notice of an order placing a constructive trust on proceeds from the sale of defendants' assets, and still used the proceeds to partially pay a tax lien on property owned by defendants.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
