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!

   State Courts - Delaware - February 17 - February 22, 2005

  
Belanger v. Fab Indus., Civil Action No. 054-N, COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, February 17, 2005, Decided
View this case - free  

Overview: Where parties disputed validity of defendant's corporate dissolution, interests of justice, under Del. Ch. Ct. R. 26(b)(1), (c), required protective order preventing depositions of defendant's key personnel. Although defendants did not file for dissolution until years after authorization, Del. Code Ann. tit. 8, ? 275 did not impose deadline.

Search Cases for Free

  
Jackson v. State, No. 568, 2003, SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, February 17, 2005, Decided
View this case - free  

Overview: Defendant was not entitled to postconviction relief, as his claims were procedurally barred under both Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 61(i)(3) and (i)(4), and he: (1) failed to establish that his counsel was ineffective, (2) did not substantiate concrete allegations of actual prejudice, and (3) failed to show a miscarriage of justice.

Search Cases for Free

  
State v. Thomas, ID#: 9811014143, SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, February 17, 2005, Decided
View this case - free  

Overview: Defendant's motion for postconviction relief was procedurally barred under Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 61(i)(3) because defendant failed to raise his claims on direct appeal.

Search Cases for Free

  
State v. Stumbers, CA No. 0407007385, SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, February 18, 2005, Decided
View this case - free  

Overview: Defendant's motion to suppress evidence recovered from a search and seizure incident to his arrest for loitering was granted because the arrest was unlawful. The officers did not ask defendant to move away from a trailer, nor did defendant have time to do so; instead, the officers arrested defendant immediately, contrary to the loitering statute.

Search Cases for Free

  
Griffin v. State, No. 437, 2004, SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, February 22, 2005, Decided
View this case - free  

Overview: A court did not err in denying defendant's motion for a mistrial because the chief investigating officer's presence at the prosecutor's table during jury selection did not prejudice defendant in front of the jury; the officer was only present at the prosecutor's table for 10 minutes before the trial judge removed her.

Search Cases for Free

  
Hembree v. State, No. 548, 2004, SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, February 22, 2005, Decided
View this case - free  

Search Cases for Free

  
In re Chasanov, No. 508, 2004, SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, February 22, 2005, Decided
View this case - free  

Overview: An attorney was suspended for six months for his ethical violations involving misrepresenting that a client in a domestic matter had paid his debt to his ex-wife in full and by taking a retainer from another client and never following up on that matter and refusing to return the retainer until after the first disciplinary hearing.

Search Cases for Free

  
Lewis v. State, No. 364, 2004, SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, February 22, 2005, Decided
View this case - free  

Overview: Denial of defendant's motion for judgments of acquittal, filed pursuant to Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 29, was proper; his convictions for aggravated menacing, Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, ? 602(b), and possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of a felony, Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, ? 1447(a), were supported by sufficient evidence.

Search Cases for Free

  
State v. Carter, ID No. 0309011756, SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, February 22, 2005, Decided
View this case - free  

Overview: Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 61(i)(3) procedurally barred defendant's motion for postconviction relief since he did not assert at trial his three ineffective trial counsel claims and did not show a miscarriage of justice based on a constitutional violation undermining the fundamental legality, reliability, integrity, or fairness of the proceedings.

Search Cases for Free

  
Back to Top