 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Cole v. State, Superior Court I.D. 0309013358,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, March 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant gave statement implicating himself and others in double murder in return for defendant being spared the death penalty, prosecution did not agree to restrict investigative use of statement. There was no evidence of such restriction until it appeared in e-mail from defense counsel to prosecution six weeks after statement.
|
|||||
| Donovan v. Harkins Prop., LLC, C.A. No. 04A-10-006 SCD,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, March 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because all of the elements of the parties' real estate contract did not occur until the buyer was provided with notarized signatures for all of the sellers, the 150 days provided in the contract had not run when the notice of termination was presented; thus, the buyer was entitled to the return of its money and summary judgment.
|
|||||
| Fink v. State, No. 578, 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, March 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Counsel was not ineffective in failing to challenge second and third warrants on appeal. While counsel believed that court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion to suppress as to later warrants, counsel reasonably believed that success in challenging first warrant could have resulted in suppression of evidence seized under later warrants.
|
|||||
| James & Jackson, LLC v. Willie Gary, LLC, No. 59, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, March 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although arbitration clause language stated that arbitration was to be conducted under a particular arbitration organization's rules, which constituted evidence of intent to have arbitrator determine substantive arbitrability, court properly determined arbitrability as other language stated that not all disputes had to be referred to arbitration.
|
|||||
| LaPoint v. AmerisourceBergen Corp., Civil Action No. 327-N,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, March 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because there was cause to question how discovery was conducted in respect to certain boxes, and because a company wanted to avoid having its lead counsel deposed under Del. Ch. Ct. R. 30(b)(6), the court offered two alternatives and ordered the company to produce a privilege log for the electronic documents still withheld as privileged.
|
|||||
| OSI Sys. v. Instrumentarium Corp., C.A. No. 1374-N,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, March 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court granted judgment on the pleadings to the seller of a business as the court found that, pursuant to the purchase agreement between the seller and the buyer of the business, the buyer had to use the form of contractual arbitration designed to address claims for breach of representations and warranties and other contractual indemnity claims.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
