 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| In re Solomon, No. 1, 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, March 1, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The state supreme court approved the Delaware Board of Professional Responsibility's final report and recommendation, suspending the attorney from the practice of law for a period of six months.
|
|||||
| Rizzitiello v. McDonald's Corp., No. 93, 2004,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, March 1, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Using a burden-shifting analysis similar to the one used in federal employment discrimination cases in the context of a claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing in a Delaware employment contract, court found employee had failed to make prima facie case for racial discrimination, especially since she resigned voluntarily.
|
|||||
| Spencer v. State, No. 60, 2004,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, March 1, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of defendant's Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 29 motion for judgment of acquittal was proper, as his conviction on two counts of second-degree assault, Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 612, and two counts of possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of a felony, Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 1447, did not violate double jeopardy principles.
|
|||||
| St. Louis v. State, No. 446, 2004,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, March 1, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Prosecution's motion to affirm under Del. Sup. Ct. R. 25(a) was granted, as a superior court properly denied defendant's postconviction relief motion under Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 61 because the issues on appeal were controlled by settled Delaware law, and to the extent that judicial discretion was implicated, there was no abuse of discretion.
|
|||||
| TIG Ins. Co. v. Premier Parks, Inc., C.A. No. 02C-04-126 PLA,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, March 1, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Upon reargument, the court agreed with an insurer that its prior discovery order was overbroad under Del. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Thus, said order was modified directing the insurer to only turn over its relevant files of its counsel-hiring decisions in cases involving expenditures of over $ 500,000.
|
|||||
| Eby v. Thompson, C.A. No. 03C-10-010(THG),
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, March 2, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment on punitive damages was granted for railroad in claim, alleging that its failure to maintain street crossing caused fatal traffic accident, as there was no evidence that railroad exhibited wanton or willful disregard for public safety, or an "I don't care attitude" as to potential danger posed by the condition of the crossing.
|
|||||
| Estate of Koike v. Patibanda, C.A. No. 02C-12-198-MMJ,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, March 2, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a medical negligence action, a physician's motion for summary judgment was denied, as questions of fact had to be resolved by the jury, including whether a third-year resident had duty or authority to deviate from or supplement an admitting physician's treatment plan, and whether the admitting physician established and communicated such a plan.
|
|||||
| Franklin v. State, No. 106, 2004,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, March 2, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Rape, terroristic threatening, and endangering the welfare of a child convictions were affirmed as the trial court did not commit plain error under Del. R. Evid. 704 in allowing a sexual assault nurse examiner to give an opinion on the issue of consent; also, the trial court's limiting instruction cured any possible prejudice from the comments.
|
|||||
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. |
