 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Burns v. State, No. 364, 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, January 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where underlying record showed that trial court had carefully considered defendant's motion for modification of sentence, and found that he had shown himself not amenable to probation, there was no denial of due process or abuse of discretion in denying the motion using a preprinted form.
|
|||||
| Christian v. State, No. 290, 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, January 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant had not identified and the Supreme Court of Delaware could not identify any meritorious issues for appeal, that court did not have to grant counsel's Del. Sup. Ct. R. 26(c) motion to withdraw, as it had been mooted.
|
|||||
| Del. Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Christiana Care Health Servs., C.A. No. 244, 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, January 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: For purposes of Del. Code Ann. tit. 18, § 4211, successor became an "insured" under its predecessor's workers' compensation policy at the time of the merger. Therefore, as its net worth exceeded $ 25 million in year before carrier's insolvency, it had to reimburse the Delaware Insurance Guaranty Association for the amounts paid to injured employee.
|
|||||
| Douzinas v. Am. Bureau of Shipping, Inc., C.A. No. 1496-N,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, January 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Chancery court found that a managing member of a limited liability company and its affiliates were entitled to an order compelling the minority members to arbitrate their breach of fiduciary duty claims in accordance with an arbitration provision of the limited liability company agreement pursuant to Del. Code Ann. tit. 6, § 18-1101(c)(2).
|
|||||
| Elliott v. Johnson, No. 321, 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, January 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an appeal from a decision designating and dividing the parties' personal property pursuant to Del. Code Ann. tit. 13, § 1513, there was no basis upon which to disturb the trial court's findings or to otherwise conclude that it abused its discretion. The former wife's motion to affirm was granted.
|
|||||
| Horsey v. State, No. 302, 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, January 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a drug delivery prosecution, as defendant did not show a reasonable probability that identity of confidential informant (CI), who observed but did not participate in a drug sale, would have materially aided his defense, court did not abuse its discretion by denying his Del. R. Evid. 509(a) motion to compel the State to reveal the CI's identity.
|
|||||
| Hubbard v. State, No. 189, 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, January 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| In re Dennison, No. 481, 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, January 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Writ of prohibition was not an available remedy for an inmate who could have appealed the sentence he later challenged and could still seek post-conviction relief from the withdrawal of his guilty plea.
|
|||||
| In re Goodlett, No. 566, 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, January 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since Delaware's Truth in Sentencing guidelines were not mandatory, mandamus relief was not available to compel sentencing in accordance with them.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
