 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bell Atlantic-Delaware v. Hall, C.A.No. 00A-05-007-JOH,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, March 20, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Reasonable counsel fees in context of workers' compensation dispute needed to be evaluated on basis of factors and formula set forth in Delaware lawyer's code of professional responsibility. Worker's application for attorney's fees was granted.
|
|||||
| State v. Brown, Cr.A.No. IN-09-06-0107-R2,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, March 20, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's postconviction relief motion in sentencing court, alleging ineffective counsel assistance for not mentioning defendant's alleged cooperation with law enforcement, did not show either counsel's professional error or prejudice.
|
|||||
| State v. Wallace, Cr.A. No. 01-11-1540,
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DELAWARE, KENT, March 20, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant's abusive language and conduct constituted fighting words that were inherently likely to provoke a violent response, the State established beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was guilty of disorderly conduct.
|
|||||
| Tenneco Auto. Inc. v. El Paso Corp., C.A. No. 18810-NC,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, KENT, March 20, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insurance agreement provision precluding assignment of rights without each party's consent did not prevent assignment by merger without consent, as change in party's identity was not material and did not create unreasonable risk to other parties.
|
|||||
| Hackett v. Bd. of Adjustment, No. 267, 2001,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, March 21, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Landowner was indispensable party to appeal and any attempt to amend notice of appeal to relate back was impermissible. Notice to landowner's prior counsel was insufficient since agency relationship did not exist.
|
|||||
| J.G. Wentworth Ssc v. Crawford, C.A. No. 99J-07-010, JD No. V-18-056,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, March 21, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A debtor's request for a new hearing on a garnishor's motion to compel an insurance company to turn over the debtor's annuity payments was denied; the debtor was not entitled to notice, as they were not a party to the garnishment.
|
|||||
| Meacham v. Del. Dep't of Labor & Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., C.A. No. 01A-08-008,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, March 21, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where employee failed to timely appeal his disqualification from unemployment benefits, unemployment insurance appeal board did not abuse its discretion in refusing to review claim; it was not agency's conduct that caused delay.
|
|||||
| State v. Dombrosky, Def. ID # 9708004381,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, March 21, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's second motion for postconviction relief was denied; the motion was time barred as it was not brought within three years of the final judgment, and the current contentions were not asserted in the first postconviction motion.
|
|||||
| Wright v. United Med. & Home Health, C.A. No. 01A-07-003,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, March 21, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: To determine trigger date for workers' compensation statute of limitations, factors to be considered were when worker recognized (1) nature, (2) severity, and (3) probable compensable nature of injury or disease, and failure to do so was error.
|
|||||
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. |
