 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Allen v. State, No. 103, 2004,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, July 7, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was no justifiable basis for introducing guilty plea of non-testifying co-defendant into evidence. While trial court instructed the jury that there were many reasons as to why an accused may plead guilty and that they were not to speculate as to why co-defendant pled guilty, this instruction was inadequate. Error required a new trial.
|
|||||
| Examen, Inc. v. VantagePoint Venture Partners 1996, C.A. No. 1142-N, C.A. No. 1260-N,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, July 7, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A Delaware court dissolved a temporary injunction that stayed a California suit between the parties and denied a permanent injunction to stay the California proceedings, because the disputed merger had been completed and plaintiffs only had to argue res judicata in California to finally resolve the voting power issues between the parties.
|
|||||
| Forsythe v. CIBC Emple. Private Equity Fund I, L.P., C.A. No. 657-N,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, July 7, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Unitholders in a limited partnership established proper purposes for their demand to inspect the books and records of the partnership, pursuant to Del. Code Ann. tit. 6, § 17-305, as the unitholders alleged that their purpose was to investigate mismanagement and to value their investments in the limited partnership.
|
|||||
| In re SunGard Data Sys., S'holder Litig., C.A. No. 1221-N,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, July 8, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court denied a motion for an expedited proceeding in order to assert a preliminary injunction in shareholders' action against a company to challenge a proposed merger where neither of the alleged disclosure claims justified expediting the proceeding; neither were active misrepresentations, and neither could support a colorable disclosure claim.
|
|||||
| iXCore, S.A.S. v. Triton Imaging, Inc., Civil Action No. 1135-N,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, July 8, 2005, Submitted , July 8, 2005, Decided , July 8, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since shareholder rebutted business judgment rule (BJR) on dismissal motion, he showed corporate board did not comply with fair value provisions of Del. Code Ann. tit. 8, § 155; BJR did not protect board's determination of fair value for shares; judicial notice under Del. R. Evid. 201(b) was properly denied where contents of documents not accurate.
|
|||||
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. |
