 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Cartanza v. LeBeau, Civil Action No. 1480-K,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, April 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Landowner's motion for leave to amend a complaint for declaratory judgment was granted under Del. Ch. Ct. R. 15 because, accepting the allegations in the proposed amended complaint as true for purposes of the motion to amend, the proposed amended complaint was sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss, and therefore was not futile.
|
|||||
| Lawson v. Meconi, No. 252, 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, April 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where medical examiner found that a decedent's death in a car fire was accidental, the trial court erred by denying the widow's request to enjoin the release of the autopsy to the public, as Del. Code Ann. tit. 29, §§ 4706 and 4707 of Delaware Medical Examiners Statute, and Del. Code Ann. tit. 16, § 1232 barred disclosure of the autopsy report.
|
|||||
| Parfi Holding AB v. Mirror Image Internet, Inc., C.A. No. 18507,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, April 3, 2006, Decided , April 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A court denied plaintiffs' exceptions to a report by a Special Master, recommending that counsel's motion to withdraw be granted, as there was abundant evidence to support the finding of adequate grounds for withdrawal pursuant to Del. Law. R. Prof. Conduct 1.6(b)(4), (6), and (7).
|
|||||
| Ramone v. Lang, C.A. No. 1592-N,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, April 3, 2006, Decided , April 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Businessman was not awarded judgment on his breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract claims against a real estate developer as neither a binding contract nor a de facto partnership existed. However, he was entitled to protection of his reliance interests under the doctrine of promissory estoppel due to an expectation the developer created.
|
|||||
| Rodriguez v. Farm Family Cas. Ins. Co., C.A. No. 04C-03-028 WLW,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, KENT, April 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insurer's application for certification of interlocutory appeal was denied under Del. Sup. Ct. R. 42(b)(i) because issue did not meet requirements of Del. Sup. Ct. R. 41 pertaining to certifying questions of law since, contrary to insurer's claim, Delaware Supreme Court had addressed application of Del. Code Ann. tit.18, § 3902(a)(3)c.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
