 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Henderson v. Chantry, Civil Action No. 1486-K,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, KENT, February 5, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Without evidence that signing spouse was authorized to act for other, signature on a petition by one spouse holding as tenant by entireties did not constitute a "lot-vote" to amend restrictive covenants.
|
|||||
| Wessells v. Am. Int'l Group, C.A. No. 01A-05-003-RSG,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, February 5, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employer seeking reargument of reversal of industrial accident board's denial of benefits showed no facts not considered or misunderstanding of law, and deference to board's credibility findings as to deposition testimony was not required.
|
|||||
| Asset Recovery Servs. v. Process Sys., Integration, C.A. No. 1999-10-124,
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, February 6, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although seller proved material breach of contract in buyer's stopping payment of check given for payment, defense judgment was entered, as seller failed to prove damages, where there was no evidence as to property's current or actual value.
|
|||||
| Gov't Tech. Servs. v. Optional Sys. Res., Inc., No. 333, 2001,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, February 6, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court's ruling that plaintiff failed to prove that computers purchased from defendant were damaged in transit was sufficiently supported by the record and was the product of an orderly and logical deductive process.
|
|||||
| State v. Rodriguez, Cr.A. No. MN01030427, 28, 29, 30, and 31, Case No: 0102007324,
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, February 7, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a defendant had notice of habitual offender proceedings sent to the address on file with the motor vehicle department and thereafter requested a postponement, such was found to comport with due process notice requirements.
|
|||||
| State v. Scott, ID # 87007286DI,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, February 7, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's petition for post-conviction relief was denied, because defendant failed to establish a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel's failure to object to the admission of several items of evidence.
|
|||||
| Wirt v. Matthews, Civil Action No. 1999-12-271,
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, February 7, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an addition to a house was not built in workmanlike manner, resulting in rotting and collapse, damages for fraudulent misrepresentation were those that were direct and proximate result of the false representations, along with punitive damages.
|
|||||
| Kurtz v. Kurtz, C.A. No. 01C-07-012 JTV,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, KENT, February 8, 2002, Order Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: If insurer's motion to intervene were not granted, known, documented evidence relevant to husband's liability would not be presented to trier of fact.
|
|||||
| State v. Bruton, ID: 0110012288,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, February 8, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court granted defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained during nighttime search of his home but not his vehicle because application for warrant did not state, and court did not find, exigent circumstances for nighttime home search.
|
|||||
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. |
