|
| |
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 Courts -
Delaware - January 18, 2006
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Caudill v. Sinex Pools, Inc., C.A. No. 04C-10-090 WCC,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, January 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: Business met criteria for corporation de facto where only thing preventing corporate status was authorization from Secretary of State. Incorporators treated the business as a corporation by, inter alia, establishing bank accounts, obtaining an IRS employer identification number, and filing tax returns in name of the business as a corporation.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Humes v. Charles H. West Farms, Inc., C.A.No. 05C-08-042 WLW,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, KENT, January 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: As the statute of limitations for an ejectment action filed by a group of individuals against a corporation was 20, and not three years, given the corporation's failure to file an answer to the complaint, and that the individuals might have been entitled to possession of the property in dispute, the corporation's motion dismiss was denied.
|
|
| |
O'Neill v. Town of Middletown, C.A. No. 1069-N,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, January 18, 2006, Decided , January 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Although Del. Code Ann. tit. 29, chs. 91 and 92 and Delaware Transportation Department's enabling legislation did not create private causes of action for rezoning opponents, they could challenge a rezoning as inconsistent with the local comprehensive plan, pursuant to Del. Code Ann. tit. 22, § 702(d).
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|