 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Prince v. State, No. 388, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, February 27, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court properly rejected defendant's claim that the information contained in a search warrant was stale by the time the warrant was issued and executed where it reasonably concluded that the passage of six days between the evidence of defendant's sale of heroin and the application for the search warrant did not render the information stale.
|
|||||
| State v. Harris, Cr.A. No. 06-04-0134-0139 Def. ID No. 0603019220,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, February 27, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized during an administrative search was granted where the copies of the pre-search checklist and other documents were unsigned and conflicted with the probation officer's testimony, thereby raising doubt as to whether the procedures for conducting an administrative search had been met.
|
|||||
| Thompson v. State, No. 435, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, February 27, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in not granting defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal in a case where he was convicted of violation of privacy in violation of Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 1335(a)(1); even though bathroom was available for use for any restaurant patron, enclosed and locked stall therein that he was trying to spy on was a private place.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
