LexisNexis
  
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.


   State Courts - Delaware - March 18 - March 20, 2009

  
Addy v. Piedmonte, Civil Action No. 3571-VCP, COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, March 18, 2009, Decided
View this case - free  

Overview: In a dispute revolving around oil and gas exploration investments, a sophisticated investor did not repose any special trust in an individual or impose on him any special duty to protect his interests. Therefore, the investor's breach of fiduciary duty claim was without merit, and was properly dismissed pursuant to Del. Ch. Ct. R. 12(b)(6).

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
Fisher v. State, No. 110, 2009, SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, March 18, 2009, Decided
View this case - free  

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
In re Hartmann, No. 139, 2009, SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, March 18, 2009, Decided
View this case - free  

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
McKirby v. A & J Builders, Inc., C.A. No. 07A-08-005-RFS, SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, March 18, 2009, Decided
View this case - free  

Overview: The Delaware Industrial Accident Board erred when it dismissed the employees petition to determine compensation. The general contractor could not escape its liability under section Del. Code Ann. tit. 19, ¿ 2311(a) because it acquired insurance that failed to satisfy the statutory requirements in place.

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
Wilmer v. State, No. 59, 2009, SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, March 18, 2009, Decided
View this case - free  

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
Carvel v. Thomas & Agnes Carvel Found., No. 523, 2008, SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, March 19, 2009, Decided
View this case - free  

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
Gardner v. McDowell, No. 112, 2009, SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, March 19, 2009, Decided
View this case - free  

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
Gattis v. Danberg, C.A. No. 08M-07-070 RRC, SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, March 19, 2009, Decided
View this case - free  

Overview: Because a death-row inmate had access to Department of Correction policies, and failed to show that he had a clear right to the performance of any duty, the inmate was not entitled to mandamus relief under Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, ¿ 564.

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
Churchill v. State, No. 601, 2008, SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, March 20, 2009, Decided
View this case - free  

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
Kent County Equip., Inc. v. Jones Motor Group, Inc., C.A. No. 08C-04-030 JAP, SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, March 20, 2009, Decided
View this case - free  

Overview: The motion to dismiss the malicious interference with prospective contractual relations and unfair competition claims against the carrier company and the agent was denied because the claim alleged that the agent was acting as the agent of the carrier company when she wrongfully transferred the service companys telephone number.

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
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.