 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Buchanan v. State, No. 614, 2008,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, January 13, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Laborers Eastern Org. Fund, C.A. No. 07C-12-156-JRJ,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, January 13, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a company did not establish why its failure to notify the correct insurer was excusable neglect as opposed to mere neglect, and because it did not explain why, after learning that it was in default on two separate occasions, it failed to timely respond to the complaint, it was not entitled to Del. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1) relief.
|
|||||
| State v. Robertson, I.D. # 0603015797,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, January 13, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant made no argument that defense counsel's representation in preparing and presenting a suppression motion fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, or that but for defense counsel's poor representation, he would not have pleaded guilty, defendant was not entitled to Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 61 relief.
|
|||||
| Dabney v. State, No. 292, 2008,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, January 14, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a trial judge did not sentence with a closed mind after hearing from defendant and other witnesses, did not have to cite to objective reasons for an increased sentence when the new sentence was less than the original, and judicially noticed that defendant's acts harmed and continue to harm the child victim, an increased sentence was proper.
|
|||||
| Redden v. State, C.A. No. 81, 2008,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, January 14, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a trial judge's curative instruction adequately dealt with a codefendant's absence on the last day of trial, defendant was not denied the right to an impartial and fair jury under U.S. Const. amend. VI and Del. Const. art. 1, § 7 when his motion for a mistrial was denied.
|
|||||
| State v. Crawley, I.D. # 0512021018,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, January 14, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant's due process, illegal search, evidentiary error, and ineffective assistance claims were not raised on appeal, conclusory, or had no basis in fact or in law, and because defendant failed to demonstrate cause or prejudice, he was not entitled to postconviction relief under Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 61(i)(3), (i)(4), (i)(5).
|
|||||
| Todd v. Delmarva Power & Light Co., C.A. No. 06C-10-304,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, January 14, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the parties failed to show good cause why they were unable to prepare for trial in accordance with deadlines set by the court, and because they treated the court's scheduling order as a guideline rather than an order of the court, they were not entitled to a continuance of the trial date or an extension of the discovery cut-off date.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Contact Us |
| Copyright® 2009 LexisNexis , a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
