Delaware, March, 2006, State Case law

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 - March 1, 2006

Charbonneau v. State, No. 253/256, 2004 [Consolidated], SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, March 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Defendant was entitled to new murder trial where trial court abused its discretion by denying defendant's motion to admit accomplice's plea and proffer into evidence after State, after jury selection had begun, announced its intention not to call the accomplice to testify, as proffer was relevant under Del. R. Evid. 401 to impeach other accomplice.

Search Cases for Free

Humes v. State, Cr. ID No. 0402006855, SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, March 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Prothonotary's acceptance of nolle prosequi of appeal was clerical mistake under Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 36 as defendant was convicted in trial court and under Del. C.P. Ct. Crim. R. 48(a), Delaware Attorney General could only file nolle prosequi with leave of court in which defendant was convicted. Nolle prosequi was void ab initio.

Search Cases for Free

In re Real Estate of Jamie's L.L.C., C.M. NO. 10810-N, COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, March 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: In the partition case, respondent was not entitled to greater than an equal share of the property despite the use of his funding to buy a parcel of the property. He intended this as a gift to petitioner's predecessor, as the parcel was titled in a way that indicated equal ownership, and the profits from leases on the parcel were shared equally.

Search Cases for Free

In re Real Estate of Michele S. Burns v. Marinis, No. 11671-NC, COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, March 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Although respondent's failure to respond to petitioner's request for admissions was deemed under Del. Ch. Ct. R. 36 to be an admission that a mother was not due any proceeds from the sale of a property and that petitioner was entitled to the available funds, those admissions were not binding on the mother.

Search Cases for Free

Communities Portal