 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Blackman v. State, No. 260, 2001,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, February 13, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's convictions were affirmed, and counsel's motion to withdraw was granted; defendant waived a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, and defendant's guilty plea was voluntary and knowing and was supported by a factual basis.
|
|||||
| Chapman v. State, No. 311, 2000,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, February 13, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The State's case against defendant was very strong and included a confession as well as direct testimony from the victim. Consequently, the admission of an improperly taken statement was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt.
|
|||||
| Haines v. State, No. 407, 2001,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, February 13, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant completed boot camp and then violated his probation, he was not entitled to credit for time served at boot camp.
|
|||||
| Hester v. State, No. 412, 2001,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, February 13, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court properly found that defendant violated his probation; a urinalysis test that was positive for cocaine, along with the testimony of defendant's case manager, provided competent evidence to support the finding of a violation.
|
|||||
| McIlquham v. Feste, C.A. No. 19042,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, February 13, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Stockholder agreement unambiguously gave minority shareholder group rights to name three directors to Delaware corporation's board, but gave majority group no comparable right to name the other four directors.
|
|||||
| Wilmer v. State, No. 383, 2001,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, February 13, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant did not claim his sentences constituted double jeopardy or were ambiguous or contradictory. His claims required an examination of the proceedings leading up to the sentence. As such, no relief was available under the statute.
|
|||||
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. |
