Delaware, April, 2007, State Case law

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!

State Courts - Delaware - April 17 - April 18, 2007

Edwards v. State, No. 295, 2006, SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, April 17, 2007, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Trial court erred in ruling that the testimony of a witness about defendant's out-of-court statement was hearsay because defendant did not offer the statement for the truth of the matter asserted under Del. R. Evid. 801; rather, the testimony was offered to contradict and thus impeach the testimony of another witness pursuant to Del. R. Evid. 607.

Search Cases for Free

State v. Brown, ID Nos. 0504010549, 0504010557, SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, April 17, 2007, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Where defendants were convicted of manslaughter, murder, robbery, and conspiracy, their motions for acquittal and new trial were denied under Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 29 and 33 because, inter alia, a witness's out-of-court statements were corroborated and the prosecutor offered comments to explain a "turncoat" witness's contradictory testimony.

Search Cases for Free

State v. Guinn, ID No. 0411013992, SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, April 17, 2007, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Because defendant previously raised in earlier postconviction relief motions the grounds asserted in his current postconviction relief motion which were previously denied, his current motion for postconviction relief was procedurally barred pursuant to Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 61(i)(4).

Search Cases for Free

State v. Philip Morris United States, Inc., No. 657, 2006, SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, April 17, 2007, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Binding arbitration was required under master settlement agreement (MSA) between the State and 51 other jurisdictions and tobacco manufacturers to determine whether the State had diligently enforced its qualifying tobacco statute as the State voluntarily entered into the MSA with plain language compelling binding arbitration in such circumstances.

Search Cases for Free

Swan v. State, No. 604, 2006, SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, April 17, 2007, Decided
View this case - free

Search Cases for Free

Doe v. Hollingsworth, C.A. No. 06C-07-031-RFS, SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, April 18, 2007, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Motion by the Division of Family Services to quash a subpoena duces tecum concerning an investigation into a claim of sexual abuse was denied pending in camera review of the records, as the minor allegedly abused was the plaintiff in the action in question, and plaintiffs had a legitimate right to address the wrongs allegedly done by defendants.

Search Cases for Free

Ginsburg v. Phila. Stock Exch., Civil Action No. 2202-CC, COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, April 18, 2007, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Stock exchange's motion for a protective order preventing disclosure of confidential information to an investment group was granted because giving the information to individuals within the group's organization posed significant risks to defendants, and the putative class representative could obtain expert advice from sources other than the group.

Search Cases for Free

State v. Trower, ID. No. 0607014181, SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, KENT, April 18, 2007, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Motion to suppress evidence was denied; window tint that was so dark that an officer could not see the occupants inside a vehicle created a reasonable suspicion that the tint violated Del. Code Ann. tit. 21, ? 4313(a) and Department of Motor Vehicle regulations, which justified the officer's stop of defendant's vehicle.

Search Cases for Free

White v. State, No. 394, 2006, SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, April 18, 2007, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Inmate was not entitled to a writ of mandamus to review the state board of parole's decision to revoke his parole as the inmate's petition was not timely because the board permitted a reconsideration in 48 months from its decision; the inmate filed his petition only 18 months later.

Search Cases for Free

Communities Portal