|
|
| |
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 26, 2007
|
| |
Bergen v. State, No. 184, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, April 26, 2007, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: The sentences imposed against defendant of three or two years imprisonment for possession of a deadly weapon, in violation of Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, ? 1448, aggravated harassment, in violation of Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, ? 1312, and carrying a concealed deadly weapon, in violation of Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, ? 1442, were within statutory ranges.
|
|
| |
Enodis Corp. v. Amana Co., L.P., C.A. No. 18836, C.A. No. 19688,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, April 26, 2007, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: When corporations' declaratory judgment petitions had been stayed due to the pendency of a related case in another jurisdiction, the corporations were not entitled to have those stays lifted when a trial court in the other jurisdiction entered judgment because that judgment was appealed, so the reasons for issuing the stays continued to operate.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
In re Will of Palecki, C.A. No. 1594-N,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, April 26, 2007, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: Pursuant to the plain language of Del. Code Ann. tit. 12, ? 1306 and Del. Code Ann. tit. 12, ? 202, a handwritten codicil unsigned and undated that was written by the testatrix out-of-state was not legally sufficient for enforcement in Delaware, therefore, summary judgment sought by the executor to enforce the codicil was denied.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Wilmington Hospitality, LLC v. New Castle County, C.A. No. 03C-07-213 MMJ,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, April 26, 2007, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: As genuine material fact issues remained on a LLC's equal protection claims against a county, and whether the county had a rational basis for its alleged differential treatment in preventing the LLC from opening its hotel, the county was denied summary judgment. Further, a Daubert hearing was ordered before an expert could testify as to damages.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|