|
| |
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 - February 7 - February 8, 2006
|
| |
Benge v. Oak Grove Motor Court, Inc. (In re Benge), C.A. No. 1837-N,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, February 7, 2006, Decided , February 7, 2006,Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Motion for reargument was denied because pursuant to Del. Code Ann. tit. 13, § 507 and Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, § 925, the family court, not the court of chancery, was the proper tribunal to hear the father's action concerning a marital property division agreement and claim for equitable relief.
|
|
| |
Deloitte & Touche United States LLP & Deloitte Tax LLP v. Lamela, Civil Action No. 1542-N,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, February 7, 2006, Decided , February 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Scope of a preliminary injunction restraining a tax advisor's consultant from soliciting or performing services for various companies to cover nine of the tax advisor's clients which the court did not include in said injuction was not expanded, as said companies retained tax advisory service providers based on competitive bidding.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Richards v. State, No. 366, 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, February 7, 2006, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: Defendant's appeal of a finding that he violated probation, and his sentence, were wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable issue, and his counsel made a conscientious effort to examine the record and properly found defendant could raise no meritorious claim, under Del. Sup. Ct. R. 26(c).
|
|
| |
State v. Wheeler, I.D. No. 0506009181,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, KENT, February 7, 2006, Verdict Issued; February 8, 2006, Order
View this case - free
|
Overview: Evidence that defendant possessed marijuana, while driving around in a vehicle for a few days prior to his arrest and fixing a mirror therein, was sufficient to support his conviction of possessing a controlled substance in a vehicle. Further, based on his admissions, he was also convicted of possessing marijuana and drug paraphernalia.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|