 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Evans v. State, No. 227, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, January 24, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Del. Const. art. II, § 16 acted as a limitation on the power of the legislature, not the judiciary. Thus, defendant's argument that an appellate court opinion violated the "single subject, single title" requirement of the Delaware Constitution was without merit. There was no due process violation arising from the appellate court's opinion.
|
|||||
| Fitzgerald v. Vishay Intertechnology, Inc., No. 363, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, January 24, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Non-party's appeal was dismissed, as nonparty generally had no standing to appeal to Delaware Supreme Court and fact that nonparty had interest in outcome of litigation, or participated in proceedings below, was insufficient to confer standing upon him for purposes of appeal. There were no circumstances that justified departing from this principle.
|
|||||
| Reserves Dev. LLC v. Crystal Props., LLC, C.A. No. 05C-11-011-RFS,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, January 24, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Seller's motion for partial summary judgment was denied as there were fact issues as to share of development attributed to assignee of buyer, whether landscaper's employment was mutually acceptable, whether contract included work that was seller's exclusive responsibility, and whether retainage was part of billings charged to assignee.
|
|||||
| Safford v. State, No. 622, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, January 24, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because nothing in the record reflected that a probationer's failure to file a timely notice of appeal was attributable to court-related personnel, the appeal was untimely under Del. Sup. Ct. R. 6(a)(ii), 10(a); consequently, the appeal was dismissed pursuant to Del. Sup. Ct. R. 29(b).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
