 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Gilliland v. St. Joseph's, C.A. No. 04C-09-042,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, January 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A claim by an executive director (ED) of a non-profit corporation against a managing director (MD), alleging that the MD failed to provide the ED with notice of a board meeting, was dismissed where the MD was immune under Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, § 8133(b), he had no such duty, and he could not restore the ED to his former position.
|
|||||
| In re Kassing, No. 508, 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, January 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since Delaware Superior Court had no duty to see that convicted rapist received a fee refund from his former privately retained defense counsel, it was inappropriate for the Delaware Supreme Court to exercise its original jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus compelling the superior court to order the refund.
|
|||||
| Mid-Land Interiors, Inc. v. Burleigh, Civil Action No. 18544,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, January 27, 2006, Decided , January 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While a business owner's defiance of court orders to appear for his deposition warranted entry of a default judgment against him pursuant to Del Ch. Ct. R. 37(b)(2)(C), the judge opted not to order the same, as the owner had never appeared in his courtroom and the movant failed to file a motion to compel. Thus, the owner was ordered to appear.
|
|||||
| Upshur v. State, No. 491, 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, January 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's positive activities after incarceration did not amount to the type of Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 35(b) extraordinary circumstances that warranted granting an untimely and repetitive motion for modification of sentence.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
