 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Foley v. Elkton Plaza Assocs., LLC, C.A. No. 05C-05-176-PLA,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, March 30, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff's damages, after being reduced by one-half because she and defendants were equally at fault, were $ 312,500. While adequate, this award was not "substantial"; therefore, it was appropriate to impose costs on defendants under Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, § 5101 without reducing them by one-half due to plaintiff's equal responsibility.
|
|||||
| Foley v. Elkton Plaza Assocs., LLC, C.A. No. 05C-05-176-PLA,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, March 30, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an action after a slip-and-fall injury, plaintiff's new trial motion (Del. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 59) was denied; there were no persuasive indicia of a compromise verdict. Although a close question of liability was presented, evidenced by the finding that each party was 50 percent negligent, the ultimate damage award was not grossly inadequate.
|
|||||
| Korn v. New Castle County, No. 165, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, March 30, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although the county's abandonment of its original $ 80 million bond sale could not be considered a monetary benefit in calculating attorney fee award, the Light Tax Fund surplus that taxpayers challenged as unlawful was used to reduce all taxpayers' light tax rate, and, thus, could be considered in calculating a common fund attorney fee award.
|
|||||
| McNair v. Taylor, C.A. No. 06C-08-031 JTV,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, KENT, March 30, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because there was not an adequate factual record to support or defeat a former inmate's medical negligence and constitutional claims, and because a medical provider's statute of limitations affirmative defenses were to be raised in its answer, the provider's Del. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss was denied without prejudice.
|
|||||
| State v. Couch, ID No. 0104005738,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, March 30, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a prisoner made a decision to waive a jury trial voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently, the prisoner failed to establish that he was prejudiced as a result of the alleged ineffective counsel since the trial court clearly emphasized the prisoner's right to a jury trial and the consequences of waiving that right.
|
|||||
| State v. Kellum, ID # 0603009059,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, March 30, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion for judgment of acquittal denied; jury could reasonably have believed shooting victim's recanting of two prior identifications of defendant was not credible as second identification showed victim telling police he would not cooperate in identifying defendant at trial, and jury could also have believed relatives' alibi testimony was biased.
|
|||||
| State v. Paoletti, ID #: 9412011030,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, March 30, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Risk assessment tier designation did not apply to defendant, but he was still subject to sex offender registration because his offense met Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 4121(a)(4) definition of sex offender. Defendant was not entitled to relief from designation because victim was less than 18 years old, and he violated his probation more than once.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
