 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Business Planning Sys. v. Pers. Decisions, Inc., No. 473, 2008,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, March 17, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Davis v. Davis, No. 574, 2008,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, March 17, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Greene v. State, No. 124, 2008,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, March 17, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although admission of un-Mirandized incriminating statements was error, other evidence supported convictions for violating Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, §§ 851 and 512. Rational jury could have credited other admissible testimony that defendant collaborated with thief and sold two stolen televisions. Admission of statement did not affect trial's outcome.
|
|||||
| Lamb v. State, No. 565, 2008,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, March 17, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Langford v. Barnholt, C.A. No. 2295-VCL,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, March 17, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a shareholder's claim for equity dilution due to allegedly improper stock option backdating was derivative in nature, and because he did not plead the existence of a controlling shareholder or any harm independent from the alleged harm to the corporation, the dilution claim could not be maintained as an individual or class action.
|
|||||
| McGrath v. Acton, C.A. No. 07C-06-322 JAP,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, March 17, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Michaels v. State, Nos. 334/358/373, 2008 (Consolidated),
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, March 17, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sufficient evidence supported convictions for first degree robbery, Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 832(a)(2); State satisfied third element of Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 831. Denial of mistrial motions were not an abuse of discretion; reference to a tear drop tattoo was probative of identity but was not unduly prejudicial under Del. R. Evid. 403 and 404.
|
|||||
| State v. Rogers, Def. ID # 0706028383,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, March 17, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner was not entitled to postconviction relief because record of the plea proceedings under Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 11(d) and the plea forms under Rule 11(g) indicated that petitioner understood the consequences of his plea of no contest to, inter alia, rape in the fourth degree and that petitioner was not coerced into accepting the plea.
|
|||||
| Stuart v. State, No. 551, 2008,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, March 17, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
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. |
