 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Royal Indem. Co. v. GMC, C.A. No. 05C-01-223 RRC,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, July 26, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although an insured did not establish that it would suffer overwhelming hardship and inconvenience if forced to litigate in Delaware, it did show that on balance, that the Cryo-Maid forum non conveniens factors warranted the grant of a stay.
|
|||||
| Samson v. Somerville, C.A. 01C-01-048 PLA,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, July 26, 2005, Submitted , July 26, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff did not contest if her refusal to accept arbitration award greater than her zero trial award was same as Del. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 68 refusal of offer of judgment so as to require her to pay defendant's expert fees. However, court exercised its Del. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 54(d) and Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, § 8906 discretion to award them.
|
|||||
| Ludema v. Callaway, C.A. No. 04A-11-002 (THG),
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, July 27, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an owner failed to present a zoning board with sufficient evidence that a proposed billboard would not substantially affect the surrounding property in an adverse manner, as required by Sussex County, Del., Code § 115-210, the board properly denied the owner's request for a special use exception.
|
|||||
| Sanchez-Caza v. Estate of Whetstone, C.A. No. 02C-08-002 (THG),
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, July 27, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because there were issues regarding a father's knowledge of a decedent's use of drugs and alcohol and the decedent's employment at the time of an automobile accident, motions for summary judgment filed by the father, the employer, and its officers and director were all denied.
|
|||||
| Bailey v. Acme/Asco/Albertson's, Inc., C.A. No. 05A-04-006,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, July 28, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Poon v. State, No. 526, 2004,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, July 28, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sufficient evidence supported conviction of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony under Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 1447A(a) where the victims testified that defendant barged into a home with a gun to try to rob money. Fact that victims disagreed on type of gun used, and that no gun was recovered, did not require reversal.
|
|||||
| Salvatore v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., C.A. No. 04C-02-030 WCC,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, July 28, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an insurer's prior lost wage payments established that it was on notice for such claims, and its arguments relating to reimbursement of medical expenses had not been sufficiently developed or fully and adequately briefed, the insurer's motions for partial summary judgment were denied.
|
|||||
| Sikander v. City of Wilmington & Wilmington Police Officer, C.A.No. 04C-04-116-JRS,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, July 28, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Police officer was granted summary judgment, pursuant to the Delaware Authorized Emergency Vehicle Statute (AEVS), Del. Code Ann. tit. 21, § 4106 (1995), as to an accident victim's negligence claims because the officer ran a red light in response to a valid police emergency and the officer's conduct was either privileged or immune under the AEVS.
|
|||||
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. |
