|
|
| |
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 23 - January 26, 2009
|
| |
|
| |
Harris v. State, No. 274, 2008,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, January 23, 2009, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: Conviction of second degree assault, Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, ¿ 612(a)(3), arising from defendant's scuffle with officer, was not supported by sufficient evidence because, inter alia, elbow to officer's head resulted in only a red mark, and the officer's two harms were so de minimus that they did not satisfy definition of "physical injury."
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Toribio v. Peninsula United Methodist Homes, Inc., C.A. No. 08A-02-001 PLA,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, January 23, 2009, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: Unemployment board's decision that a claimant was not entitled to benefits under Del. Code tit. 19, ¿ 3314(2) was supported by substantial evidence because the claimant had knowledge that employer's policies barred aggression against co-workers, the claimant struck a co-worker, and the employer had just cause for terminating the claimant.
|
|
| |
Brodie v. State, No. 38, 2008,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, January 26, 2009, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: Although defendant suffered some prejudice from his pretrial detention, his defense was not impaired; therefore, his right to a speedy trial under U.S. Const. amend. VI, Del. Const. art. I, ¿ 7 was not violated when his Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 16(d)(2) motion in limine was denied.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
