 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Brasby v. Morris, C.A. No. 05C-10-022-RFS,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, March 29, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although the economic loss doctrine and the lack of an anticipatory breach or an accord and satisfaction under Del. Code Ann. tit. 6, §§ 2-609, 3-311 precluded a buyer's negligence and breach of contract claims, the buyer sufficiently alleged a claim of fraud against the seller under Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 917(b)(1),(b)(2).
|
|||||
| Brookins v. State, No. 306, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, March 29, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly denied defendant's motion pursuant to Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 4504(b), seeking a new trial on his murder conviction, as newly discovered DNA evidence relied on by defendant was not likely to have changed the result of the trial, as the remaining circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
|
|||||
| Drummond v. State, No. 92, 2007,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, March 29, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Gotwals v. State, No. 381, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, March 29, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appeal from the denial of a motion for postconviction relief was dismissed as unopposed under Del. Sup. Ct. R. 3(b)(2) and 29(b) because appellant failed to respond within 10 days as required in a second notice to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as moot.
|
|||||
| Guererri v. State, No. 375, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, March 29, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a trial on drug charges, the trial court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress evidence, as the emergency doctrine applied to the search of defendant's residence, as officers reasonably believed that someone in the home might be in need of emergency assistance after observing evidence of gunfire outside the home.
|
|||||
| Holman v. Northwest Broad., L.P., C.A. No. 1572-VCN,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, KENT, March 29, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Limited partner was entitled to additional records under Del. Code Ann. tit. 6, § 17-305(a) as his request to value his interest was for a proper purpose and performance-based executive compensation awarded was relevant for that purpose and was lumped together with all corporate overhead in financial statements already provided to the partner.
|
|||||
| Morgan v. State, No. 172, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, March 29, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court committed reversible error when it admitted a police detective's narrative summary into evidence as a prior statement pursuant to Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 3507; it was the actual statement of the witness, not the police detective's interpretative narrative which qualified for admission under Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 3507.
|
|||||
| O'Neill v. Town of Middletown, C.A. No. 2478-VCN,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, March 29, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Chancery court declined to exercise its discretion under Del. Code Ann. tit. 29, § 10005 to reverse a rezoning decision because, although a town council engaged in an illegal executive session under Del. Code Ann. tit. 29, § 10004 as the session should have taken place in a public hearing, there was no identifiable action taken during the session.
|
|||||
| State v. Henry, Defendant ID No. 0609021733,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, March 29, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was not entitled to a new trial on drug-related charges because while defendant asserted error as an informant did not testify, the informant was not subpoenaed by defense counsel for strategic reasons although defendant was arrested at the informant's house and, thus, was aware of his address.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
