 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Kemske v. State, No. 168, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, January 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in convicting defendant of Sexual Exploitation of a Child, in violation of Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 1108(a)(1), and Violation of Privacy, in violation of Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 1335; evidence showed he filmed child nude for his sexual gratification and in a place the child would have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
|
|||||
| C&J Paving, Inc. v. Hickory Commons, LLC, C.A. No. 06L-07-023 THG,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, January 3, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to dismiss a mechanic's lien claim was granted as the work that formed the basis of the action consisted of improvements to land, alone, and the provider of materials and labor to a subcontractor failed to meet the requirements of Del. Code Ann. tit. 25, § 2703 as it did not present a contract signed by the owner for the work performed.
|
|||||
| Cape Henlopen Taxpayers for Fair Elections v. Cape Henlopen Sch. Dist., C.A. 2078-S,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, KENT, January 3, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Given no reason to dismiss the public works contracting claims asserted by a group of taxpayers, summary judgment in opposition to the same was denied. But, bonds issued to a contracting group were upheld, and the court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the taxpayers' declaratory judgment claim as a matter of judicial economy.
|
|||||
| Manley v. State, No. 75/82, 2006, No. 76/86, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, January 3, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sentences of death imposed upon first defendant and second defendant were affirmed; no error occurred in second penalty hearing when trial court read to jury an accomplice liability instruction given to original jury during trial, as the instruction correctly explained the charges and the principle of law under they were convicted.
|
|||||
| State v. Ismaaeel, Def. ID # 0304002130 - R2,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, January 4, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although a court made misstatements of fact regarding the circumstances of an inmate's arrest in denying his first postconviction relief (PCR) motion, as the factual errors would not have changed the validity of the inmate's detention and search under Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, §§ 1902, 4321(d), and 4334(b), there was no consequence.
|
|||||
| Ostroff v. Quality Servs. Labs., Inc., C.A. No. 423-N,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, January 5, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Chancery court granted summary judgment to a company on a widow's claim for life insurance benefits upon the death of her husband because a life insurance agreement was effectively terminated according to the various agreements among the husband and the other founders of the company and in the sale of the company to a third-party.
|
|||||
| Wolf v. State, No. 242, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, January 5, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 4347(i) did not reduce the overall length of a parolee's sentence, and because the parolee's good-time credits were forfeited when the Parole Board ordered him to serve out the full term of the balance of his sentence, the trial court properly denied the parolee's petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
