 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Brittingham v. Bd. of Adjustment of Rehoboth Beach, C.A. No. 03A-08-002,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, January 14, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Settlement presented to the Board of Adjustment was equivalent to a final decision when there was no withdrawal of an application for variance and no formal approval, as the Board had a duty to speak when it appeared there was a final disposition.
|
|||||
| Hazim v. State, No. 188, 2004,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, January 14, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's second-degree conspiracy conviction was upheld because there was clearly sufficient evidence presented at trial to support the conviction; the evidence showed that defendant was well aware of her codefendants' plan to transport drugs.
|
|||||
| Middlebrook v. Ayres, No. 281, 2004,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, January 14, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Saudi Basic Indus. Corp. v. Mobil Yanbu Petrochemical Co., No. 493, 2003,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, January 14, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The statute of limitations did not bar a breach of contract and tort counterclaim filed against a foreign corporation because it chose to litigate the case in Delaware, instead of Saudi Arabia, which had no statute of limitations.
|
|||||
| Wilson v. Wilson, C.A.No. 04C-03-031 WLW,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, KENT, January 14, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because motions to amend were to be granted liberally, and because defendant was not unduly prejudiced by the form of plaintiff's amended complaint, the fact that plaintiff's motion failed in form did not preclude granting leave to amend.
|
|||||
| Holland v. State, No. 262, 2004,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, January 18, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was not prejudiced as the prosecutor linked his comments, regarding the veracity of the officer's testimony, to the evidence presented at trial. The statements were made in response to defense counsel's own credibility-based comments.
|
|||||
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. |
