 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Crumpton v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., C.A. No. 02C-04-315 CLS,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, January 28, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an injured party was statutorily precluded from amending her complaint to include both PIP and UM/UIM claims, an insurer's motion to sever the claims was granted.
|
|||||
| Hicks v. Best Buy Co. of Minn., Inc., C.A. No. 01C-10-268 CLS,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, January 28, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although certain trial costs were recoverable, because both parties filed for a trial de novo, an individual waived any right to recover her share of the arbitrator's fee.
|
|||||
| Jones v. State, No. 198, 2003,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, January 28, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the lack of fingerprint testing was not the result of negligence or bad faith, the missing evidence had little potential to exculpate defendant, and the evidence against him was strong, a missing evidence instruction was not required.
|
|||||
| Mktg. Prods. Mgmt., LLC v. HealthandBeautyDirect.com, Inc., C.A. No. 02C-04-256 CLS,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, January 28, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court lacked personal jurisdiction over a nonresident director and major shareholder in an action against his corporation based on fraudulent inducement and breach of contract; also, it lacked equity jurisdiction to pierce the corporate veil.
|
|||||
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. |
