 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bell v. Guiliano, C.A. No. 06A-06-003,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, February 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A lower court properly awarded a homeowner damages on breach of contract claim against a flooring installer where a certified flooring inspector's estimate was the only persuasive evidence of the cost of replacing the improperly installed floor coverings, depreciation was not warranted, and substantial evidence supported the decision.
|
|||||
| Franco v. State, No. 288, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, February 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: It was no error to bar a victim's cross-examination about marijuana use irrelevant to the amount of restitution, as the Del. Const. art. I, § 7 right to confrontation did not apply. Barring cross-examination on the victim's threats to defendant erred harmlessly, as it went to bias, but it did not substantially and injuriously influence restitution.
|
|||||
| Jackson v. State, No. 120,2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, February 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A witness's comment, at defendant's criminal trial, that defendant was "known to carry weapons" and was considered "armed and dangerous" did not require reversal of defendant's criminal convictions because the comment was isolated and unsolicited, the case was not close, and the comment went to no central issue in dispute.
|
|||||
| Martinez v. General Metalcraft, Inc., No. 514,2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, February 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly affirmed the Industrial Accident Board's denial of a welder's petition for additional disfigurement compensation pursuant to Del. Code Ann. tit. 19, § 2326(f) (2005), as the Board properly considered the evidence concerning the welder's varicose veins and determined that 10 weeks of compensation was proper.
|
|||||
| State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Buckingham, No. 350, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, February 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an unidentified assailant got out of his car and then assaulted an insured who was in another vehicle that was stopped at a traffic light, his injuries did not arise "out of the ownership, maintenance or use" of the uninsured motor vehicle and accordingly, he was not entitled to uninsured motorist coverage under the Klug test.
|
|||||
| In re Dennison, No. 581, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, February 22, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Moye v. State, No. 324, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, February 22, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant's attorney made a strategic decision to request a curative instruction, and not a mistrial, after the prosecutor commented on defendant's silence, the trial court did not abuse its discretion or commit plain error by not ordering a mistrial sua sponte.
|
|||||
| Scott v. State, No. 140, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, February 22, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although defendant correctly asserted that his right to cross-examine a witness to stabbing that led to the charges against defendant was error because defendant should have been allowed to question the witness about potential bias, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because other witnesses corroborated the testimony of that witness.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
