 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Honeywell Int'l, Inc. v. Air Prods. & Chems., Inc., No. 400, 2004,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, March 29, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A strategic alliance agreement was properly held to have been a valid and enforceable contract, despite having certain terms left open for future agreement, and a manufacturer was entitled to lost profits damages through the term of the contract due to a breach of the agreement.
|
|||||
| Tafeen v. Homestore, Inc., Civil Action No. 023-N,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, March 29, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Considering Del. Law. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5(a) factors, corporate officer was entitled to advancement of attorney fees he requested less certain reductions as calculated by Special Master in Special Master's Final Report, but he was only entitled to prejudgment interest running from dates he produced specific advancement expenses to corporation.
|
|||||
| Atamian v. Bahar, C.A. No. 01C-03-031 (JTV),
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, KENT, March 30, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dentist, clinic, and laboratory were granted summary judgment on patient's tort claims as, inter alia, patient's fear of dentist could not have been imminent as it did not arise until after treatment, thus, assault and battery claim failed, and there was no evidence that any misrepresentations were made with knowledge of falsity or recklessness.
|
|||||
| Matthews v. Groove Networks, Inc., Civil Action No. 1213-N,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, March 30, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court denied defendant corporate employer's motion to place previously filed papers under seal under Del. Ch. Ct. R. 5(g) because confidentiality provisions of employee's employment agreement and stock purchase agreement did not apply to merger information obtained after his termination and from stockholder mailings.
|
|||||
| Smith v. First Corr. Med., LLC, C.A. No. 04C-12-028 WLW,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, KENT, March 30, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to dismiss medical malpractice suit was denied. In camera review of affidavit of merit, pursuant to Del. Code Ann. tit. 18, ¿ 6853, revealed that expert witness had been regularly engaged in treatment of patients in similar field of medicine as doctor and set forth that there were grounds to believe that the doctor breached standard of care.
|
|||||
| State v. Anderson, ID #: 0205008166,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, March 30, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant failed to bring his postconviction relief claims to the court's attention as they arose and failed to raise those claims during his appeal, the claims were barred by Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 61(i)(3), (4). Defendant did not establish cause for relief from the procedural default and prejudice from any violation of his rights.
|
|||||
| State v. Powell, ID #: 0303014017 & 0311021435,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, March 30, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was not entitled to postconviction relief from resentencing because he did not object to resentencing and did not appeal from it. His claim was thus procedurally defaulted under Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 61(i)(3), (4). In any event, there was no merit to defendant's motion since the court was free to reject written plea agreement.
|
|||||
| U.S. Bank N.A. v. U.S. Timberlands Klamath Falls, L.L.C., C.A. No. 112-N,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, March 30, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a bank's attempt to amend its complaint to add additional claims, with respect to all of the claims except a claim for piercing the corporate veil, the prejudice to defendants was negligible. However, as veil-piercing was a fact-intensive inquiry that would involve substantial, burdensome, discovery, that claim was denied.
|
|||||
| WSFS v. Chillibilly's Inc., C.A. No. 03C-11-021(THG),
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, March 30, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Bank was entitled to replevin of non-fixtures, but not fixtures, because it failed to support its priority in the same. Also, it failed to show justifiable reliance on an alleged misrepresentation, supporting rejection of its fraud and promissory estoppel claims. Finally, absent privity or agency, it could not prove its unjust enrichment claim.
|
|||||
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. |
