 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Gregory v. State, No. 450, 2004,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, March 9, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Upon a probationer's fourth violation of probation conviction, after a review of the record, and absent an arguable point on appeal for reversal, the sentence imposed against him was upheld, and counsel's motion to withdraw filed pursuant to Del. Sup. Ct. R. 26(c) was considered moot.
|
|||||
| Hales v. Wing, C.A. No. 03C-03-230 RRC,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, March 9, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff's request for costs was granted, but reduced, as: (1) she was not entitled to costs for a demand for trial de novo because her case went to a mediation under Del. Super. Cr. R. Civ. P. 16.1(b)(2) and not Del Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 16.1(b)(1) arbitration, and (2) labor statistic guidelines supported a reasonable expert's fee of $ 500.
|
|||||
| In re Graham, No. 31, 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, March 9, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Probationer was not entitled to a writ of mandamus directing a superior court to decide numerous motions involving a violation of probation warrant within a limited time period as the passage of less than three months was insufficient to hold that the court arbitrarily refused to perform a duty to which he had a clear legal right.
|
|||||
| Ingram v. Dover Assocs. Joint Venture, No. 145, 2004,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, March 9, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was properly entered in favor of mortgage lenders against debtors where evidence was clear that they defaulted on loans and that indebtedness had not been discharged in bankruptcy; since no proposed amendments to pleadings were relevant or would have affected outcome, permission to amend was properly denied.
|
|||||
| Korn v. New Castle County, Civil Action No. 767-N,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, March 9, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys. v. Herbst, C.A. No. 04L-07-006,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, March 9, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court agreed with a mortgage company that the amount in dispute with defendants over a mortgage agreement was a genuine issue of material fact. The court was unable to grant defendants' motion for summary judgment when a clear factual issue remained unresolved.
|
|||||
| State v. Capano, Def. ID # 9711006198 (R-1),
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, March 9, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's trial counsel was not ineffective in his murder trial for, among other things, entering into a hearsay stipulation with the State. Since Ring did not impact the constitutionality of the 1991 Delaware sentencing statute, Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 4209, the death penalty imposed in defendant's case was valid.
|
|||||
| Trump v. State, No. 404, 2004,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, March 9, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's untimely postconviction claims were properly denied as the record failed to support that he would have been acquitted if the victim's diary had been presented to the jury to show she was lying. Thus, such did not amount to a colorable claim of a miscarriage of justice to overcome the time bar. Further, reargument was unwarranted.
|
|||||
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. |
