 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Butler v. Tharp (In re Butler & Breasure), C.A. 04C-11-003-ESB,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, March 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Though a driver admitted his negligence caused an accident, and though the only medical expert testified that the accident aggravated preexisting conditions, the jury was entitled to disbelieve subjective complaints of pain, and it was entitled to award zero damages; the court denied a motion for a new trial.
|
|||||
| Hopkins v. State, No. 540, 2004,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, March 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where State disclosed before trial pursuant to request under Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 16(a) that detective was to testify as expert regarding commercial intent of defendant's cocaine possession, detective's testimony regarding defendant's use of phrase beat for six fell within scope of disclosure, as phrase was commercial in nature.
|
|||||
| Korn v. New Castle County, Civil Action No. 767-N,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, March 2, 2006, Decided , March 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a county cancelled a bond issue and spent certain reserves to reduce a certain tax, the benefits of those actions to taxpayers were too speculative to be a "substantial benefit" justifying a recovery of attorney's fees and costs from the county by those who sued it over these issues, despite the benefit of the county's compliance with the law.
|
|||||
| State v. Jenkins (In re State), Def. ID # 0409007336,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, March 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A prosecutor's improper comments during closing that related to the issue of defendant's intent to deliver cocaine did not require a new trial under Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 33. The comments did not sway the jury, which acquitted defendant of possession with intent to deliver and convicted him of a lesser-included possession offense.
|
|||||
| State v. Rivera, ID #: 9503004907,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, March 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's third motion for postconviction relief was summarily dismissed under Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 61(i), as it was procedurally barred and he never requested voir dire on racial bias; the court was not required to conduct this type of voir dire on its own initiative.
|
|||||
| UniSuper Ltd. v. News Corp., Civil Action No. 1699-N,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, March 2, 2006, Decided , March 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Lobianco v. State, No. 349, 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, March 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Photo's contents, buttressed by indirect or circumstantial evidence, formed sufficient basis for authentication, even without photographer's testimony. Husband's testimony that photos were accurate depiction of his injuries seven days after assault which caused them sufficiently authenticated photos, and admission of the photos was proper.
|
|||||
| State v. Carter, No. IN 01-06-2606R1, 2607R1, 2608R1; IN 01-06-1755R1, 1756R1, 1757R1, 1758 R1, 1759R1,1760R1, 1761R1, 1762R1, 1763R1, 1764R1, 1765R1, 1766R1, 1767R1, 1768R1, 1769R1, 1770R1, 1771R1, 1772R1, 1773R1, 1774R1, 1775R1, 1778R1, IN-01-06-2373R1,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, March 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since there was no indication from the prisoner as to how the efforts of his counsel fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, or in what way the outcome of his case would have been different, the prisoner's petition for postconviction relief was denied.
|
|||||
| Zenith Prods. Corp. v. Rodriguez, C.A. No. 05A-09-005,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, March 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Board's decision to grant workers' compensation benefits to a claimant was supported by substantial evidence under Del. Code Ann. tit. 29, § 10142(d) where a hearing officer accepted the claimant's expert's testimony that an MRI with a stronger magnet showed a disk herniation that had not previously been detected with a less sensitive magnet.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
