 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| 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.
|
|||||
| 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.
|
|||||
| 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).
|
|||||
| 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.
|
|||||
| 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.
|
|||||
| 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.
|
|||||
| 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.
|
|||||
| 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.
|
|||||
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. |
