 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| E-Birchtree, LLC v. Enter. Prods.Operating, L.P., C.A. No. 06C-07-200 MMJ,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, January 18, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion for stay of Delaware suit was granted under Del. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3) as limited liability company's interest in litigating in Delaware was outweighed by comity considerations since Texas court had ruled that similar action in Texas would proceed. If motion were denied, Delaware and Texas courts would be on collision course.
|
|||||
| In re William Lyon Homes S'holder Litig., C.A. No. 2015-N; Consolidated,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, KENT, January 18, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pension fund's motion for reconsideration was denied as fund was not entitled to attorney's fees. There was no basis for implication that third-party investor could negotiate increase in tender consideration because litigation was kept going in California. Fund did not show that its efforts contributed to initial settlement or to final increase.
|
|||||
| Anders v. Indian River Sch. Dist., File No. CS05-02707, Petition No. 05-32107,
FAMILY COURT OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, January 19, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A due process educational panel erred by not allowing the parents of a special needs child to present a child find claim against the district since the parents' complaint met the minimal pleading standard and, therefore, adequately put the district on notice of their child find claim, as required by 20 U.S.C.S. § 1415(b)(7)(A).
|
|||||
| Cingular Pa., LLC v. Sussex County Bd. of Adjustment, C.A. No. 05A-12-003-RFS,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, January 19, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence in the record supported the county adjustment board's decision that denied the company's application for a special use exception, in which it had sought to put a 150-foot telecommunications monopole, as evidence showed that the monopole could affect the neighboring properties both substantially and adversely.
|
|||||
| General Holding, Inc. v. McGovern, No. 638, 2006 and No. 16, 2007,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, January 19, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As appellants filed a notice of appeal from orders of the Delaware Court of Chancery, which were interlocutory due to the pendency of a motion for attorneys fees in the lower court, and there was no compliance with Del. Sup. Ct. R. 42, such appeal was improperly filed and required dismissal.
|
|||||
| In re Petition of Dixon, No. 601, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, January 19, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An inmate's mandamus petition for release of his psychiatric/psychological evaluations did not invoke the Delaware Supreme Court's original jurisdiction because he did not show the trial court refused to perform a duty owed to him, and he sought mandamus as a substitute for appellate review of a Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 61 postconviction motion.
|
|||||
| State v. Cooke, CRIMINAL ACTION NUMBERS, IN-05-06-1529, IN-05-06-1530, IN-05-06-1531, IN-05-06-1532, IN-05-06-1533 and IN-05-06-2390, IN-05-06-2391, IN-05-06-2392, IN-05-06-2393, IN-05-06-2394, ID No. 0506005981,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, January 19, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a consideration of defendant's motions in limine to exclude proffered testimony in his criminal prosecution for murder and other crimes, where an expert, in seeking to obtain handwriting exemplars, dictated to defendant what to write, this constituted a violation of his right against self-incrimination as protected by the Fifth Amendment.
|
|||||
| Stevenson v. State, No. 351, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, January 19, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment finding defendant guilty of violation of probation was affirmed, as counsel made conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and properly determined that defendant could not raise a meritorious claim in appeal. Counsel related that defendant told him at a video conference that defendant did not have any points to raise.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
