 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Drake v. Hudson, No. 433, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, March 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Jones v. State, No. 482, 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, March 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant met burden of making prima facie showing State purposefully exercised peremptory challenges in racially discriminatory manner and trial judge found prosecutor offered race-neutral reason for strikes; however, remand was necessary because trial judge did not determine if defendant carried burden of proving purposeful discrimination.
|
|||||
| Jurbala v. State, No. 315, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, March 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a probationer never appealed from the Del. Code Ann, tit. 11, § 4204(k) violation of probation proceedings, and because the probationer could not establish cause for the procedural default or prejudice, Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 61(i)(3) acted as a bar to his belated claims.
|
|||||
| Raymond v. State, No. 309, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, March 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant acted intentionally during the course of fighting with the police and caused physical injury, as defined by Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 222(23), by breaking a police officer's hand, the evidence was sufficient to establish each element of a charge of second-degree assault under Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 612(a)(3).
|
|||||
| State v. Gudzelak, Crim. I.D. No. 0407020818,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, March 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although a judge had previously represented defendant in a civil matter, defendant waived any claim of bias or prejudice; therefore, because defendant failed to demonstrate that the judge was impartial or that there was a conflict of interest under Del. Judges' Code Jud. Conduct Canon 3(C)(1), he was not entitled to postconviction relief.
|
|||||
| State v. Malinovskaya, IN-05-01-0437-0438,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, March 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion to quash a subpoena concerning an alleged Russian language e-mail was denied as any attorney-client privilege was waived when defense counsel provided an English translation in a previous trial. The motions to quash subpoenas for testimony from defense counsel were granted as the court declined to apply the crime/fraud exception.
|
|||||
| State v. Ortiz, ID No. 0602006591,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, March 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Sturgis v. Bayside Health Assoc., C.A. No. 04C-06-139 MMJ,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, March 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court found regarding next friend's Del. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 59(a) motion for a new trial that no reason existed to revisit pre-trial ruling that limited the next friend's expert to opinions properly supported by well-recognized scientific principles sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance, and, thus, motion was denied.
|
|||||
| State v. Hickman, I.D. No. 0605026650,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, March 7, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to suppress statement to police was denied in theft case because defendant's question to detective as to whether he was allowed to have a lawyer present for interrogation was an equivocal invocation of right to counsel, and the detective properly clarified defendant's wishes before proceeding in compliance with Del. Const. art. I, § 7.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
