 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Civarelli v. Bacchetta, C.A. No. 99C-03-100-JTV,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, January 15, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A tortfeasor's motion for a new trial or for remittitur of the verdict in a personal injury action was denied; the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence, and was not grossly out of proportion to the injuries suffered.
|
|||||
| Coverdale v. State, No. 343, 2001,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, January 15, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Post-conviction relief petition was properly denied where plea hearing record indicated guilty plea was knowing and voluntary, not coerced. Delaware trial court had discretion regarding submission of supporting materials.
|
|||||
| Fuller v. State, No. 164, 2001,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, January 15, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant who sought to exclude evidence of prior arrest warrant could not object later to its absence; under certain factual scenarios, cocaine possession and trafficking under Delaware law contained identical elements.
|
|||||
| In re Holmes, No. 575, 2001,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, January 15, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A petition for a writ of prohibition was dismissed, because the petitioner had an adequate remedy in the appellate process, and petitioner could not use the extraordinary writ process to accomplish indirectly what could not be done directly.
|
|||||
| In re Lucas-Insertco Pharmaceutical Printing Co., No. 572, 2001,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, January 15, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A printing company's petition for a writ of mandamus ordering the trial court to lift a stay was dismissed; the company did not establish a right to the relief it sought, and the company had an adequate remedy in the appellate process.
|
|||||
| Ingram v. State, No. 479, 2001,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, January 15, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court properly denied defendant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his conviction; defendant's contentions of insufficient evidence to support the conviction were not properly a matter subject to habeas corpus review.
|
|||||
| Lum v. State, No. 211, 2001,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, January 15, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sentence of life imprisonment for unlawful sexual intercourse was affirmed where at the time of sentencing the crime carried a mandatory life sentence.
|
|||||
| Public Water Supply Co. v. Dipasquale, C.A. No. 01A-03-002,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, January 15, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A company was erroneously issued permits to supply water to a residential development, because the company was acting as a public utility, and therefore had to obtain a certificate of public convenience and necessity prior to supplying water.
|
|||||
| State v. Roberts, CRIMINAL ACTION NUMBERS IN-00-11-1714, IN-00-11-1715, IN-00-11-1716, IN-00-11-1718, IN-00-11-1719, IN-01-02-0569,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, January 15, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's statements were suppressed as not voluntary, where officer told him his offer to advise judge and prosecutors of defendant's cooperation would be withdrawn, and unfavorable consequences would follow, if he did not confess.
|
|||||
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. |
