 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| David B. Shaev Profit Sharing Account v. Armstrong, C.A. No. 1449-N,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, February 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When investors said corporate directors did not discover corporate fraudulent relations with two clients, but did not show the directors willfully or recklessly ignored information leading to the discovery of misconduct, the investors did not show it was futile to demand that the board of directors address these claims, under Del. Ch. Ct. R. 23.1.
|
|||||
| Parker v. Wilk, CA No. 98C-12-075-JEB,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, February 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a loss of chance action, because an administrator's expert failed to provide a scientific basis for his opinion regarding the percent of decedent's loss of chance, explain his conclusions in terms of recognized principles or methodologies, and failed to establish causation and damages, a doctor's summary judgment motion was granted.
|
|||||
| ABRY Partners V, L.P. v. F&W Acquisition LLC, C.A. No. 1756-N,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, February 14, 2006, Decided , February 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where sophisticated commercial parties entered into a contract for the purchase of a company, which limited the seller's liability for any misrepresentation of fact and excluded rescission as an available remedy, such was enforceable except if the buyer could show intentional misrepresentation or knowledge of falsity by the seller.
|
|||||
| Smith v. Lawson, C.A. No.: 01C-12-105 RRC,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, February 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Policy holder's application for an interlocutory appeal of the grant of a motion for new trial as to damages only was denied because the interlocutory appeal would not terminate the litigation and could in fact increase the number of issues to considered during the new trial, so the issues presented by Del. Sup. Ct. R. 41 and 42 were not solved.
|
|||||
| State v. Staten, I.D. No. 0508018142,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, February 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant lacked standing to contest the search warrant for a Federal Express package, which was neither addressed to him nor sent by him, his motion to suppress the physical evidence seized pursuant to the warrant was therefore denied.
|
|||||
| Tunnell v. Stokley, Civil Action No. 680-S,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, February 15, 2006, Decided , February 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Daughters of a decedent who were not beneficiaries under her will lacked standing to seek an accounting of real estate proceeds arising from the sale of estate property and to claim that the executor breached her fiduciary duties by failing to properly manage the decedent's assets; their claims were dismissed.
|
|||||
| Wellington Homes, Inc. v. State ex rel. Brady, No. 634, 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, February 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Angstadt v. Lippman, C.A. NO. 04C-02-041 (RBY),
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, KENT, February 16, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dentist's request to use portions of patient's expert's discovery deposition at trial was denied because section did not satisfy Del. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 32 criteria, testimony was not admissible hearsay, there were not Del. Super. Ct. R. P. 32(3)(E) exceptional circumstances, and admission of testimony would be injustice to patient.
|
|||||
| In re Cencom Cable Income Ptnrs., L.P., C.A. No. 14634-NC,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, KENT, February 16, 2006, Decided , February 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Despite the sluggish pace of plaintiffs' class action suit, and their lack of diligence, defendants' motion to dismiss, filed pursuant to Del. Ch. Ct. R. 41(b) and (e), was denied, as the court recognized a preference of resolving the decision on the merits and plaintiffs seemed to resume the diligent prosecution of their claims.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
