 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Andrus v. State, No. 190, 2003,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, March 12, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was denied postconviction relief where, inter alia, counsel's failure to seek suppression of statements did not prejudice defendant and any error in failing to seek suppression of prosecutor's statements regarding remorse was harmless.
|
|||||
| Ayers v. State, No. 623, 2002,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, March 12, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly instructed the jury on accomplice liability of defendant, as the evidence supported theories of defendant's guilt as a principal or an accomplice to a murder; the denial of a unanimity instruction on defendant's role was proper.
|
|||||
| Confin Int'l Invs., Inc. v. AT&T Corp., C.A. No. 19997,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, March 12, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted because the minority stockholder did not suffer any special injury where the diminution in value of the corporation was an injury suffered equally by all of the corporation's stockholders.
|
|||||
| State v. Muto, I.D. No.: 0305008627,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, March 12, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion to dismiss an indictment for threats against a public official was denied because the statute which contained the offense was neither overbroad, nor vague as applied to defendant, nor vague on its face.
|
|||||
| White v. State, No. 359, 2003,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, March 12, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant did not comply with the rules of a rehabilitation program, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion by finding that defendant violated the conditions of his probation.
|
|||||
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. |
