 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| AT&T Corp. v. Lillis, No. 490, 2007, No. 459, 2007, No. 459, 2007,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, March 9, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Supreme court deferred to a trial court's evaluation of extrinsic evidence regarding the meaning of "economic position" in a stock option plan because the trial court could consider admissions in deciding the meaning when the admissions related to the plan. Instructions to the trial court to disregard the admissions was based on a factual mistake.
|
|||||
| Commonwealth Constr. Co. v. Endecon, Inc., C.A. No. 08C-01-266 RRC,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, March 9, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An architect's motion to dismiss a construction company's claim of tortious interference with contractual relations was denied when the economic loss doctrine did not bar the company's claim. Collateral estoppel did not preclude the claim when the issues the company presented to the Delaware Association of Professional Engineers were not identical.
|
|||||
| Honaker v. State, No. 363, 2008,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, March 9, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because there was no factual basis for defendant's judicial bias claim, because his claim of ineffective assistance was raised for the first time on direct appeal, and because his sentence for third-degree burglary was within the statutory limits of Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, ¿¿ 824, 4205(b)(6), his appeal was frivolous under Del. Sup. Ct. R. 26(c).
|
|||||
| Jones v. State, No. 491, 2008,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, March 9, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Marcelin v. Layton, No. 322, 2008,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, March 9, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Sammons v. Andersen, No. 323, 2008,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, March 9, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Former husband's legal malpractice claim relating to the execution of a revocation of an antenuptial agreement was time barred by Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, ¿ 8106 because suit was filed over six years after the revocation was signed, and the revocation document itself placed the former husband on notice of its nature and implications.
|
|||||
| Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc'y, FSB v. Anderson, C.A. No. 08C-06-030 PLA,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, March 9, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A creditor's motion to dismiss a debtor's counterclaim under Del. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) was granted because the debtor's counterclaims under TILA, 15 U.S.C.S. ¿¿ 1601-1667, and its implementing regulations, 12 C.F.R. pt. 226, were barred. Because the loan was for commercial purposes, it was beyond the scope of the consumer protection laws.
|
|||||
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. |
