 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| C.G.O. v. R.A.O., File No. CN00-10822, Petition No. 00-35866,
FAMILY COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, April 9, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In determining child's home state under UCCJA, father's claim that he resided in Delaware was rejected as not being credible, where he signed legal document stating that he resided in Pennsylvania, and he was working in Pennsylvania.
|
|||||
| State v. Evans, IK96-11-003-R1, IK96-11-005-R1,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, KENT, April 9, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a defendant did not raise any of the issues pending at a hearing on the violation of probation, at sentencing, or on direct appeal, his claims were barred. He was not entitled to counsel at a violation of probation hearing.
|
|||||
| State v. Harvey, Def. ID # 93S02211DI,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, April 9, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant could be resentenced and additional conditions imposed where the probation violation was not a direct, automatic consequence of a plea; the court did not have to inform defendant of probation violation consequences.
|
|||||
| State v. Oberly, Def. ID #s 9703009612 and 9503003941,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, April 9, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant had repeatedly raised an issue and it was found against him, and where he failed to show cause for relief from a procedural bar and also did not show that he was prejudiced, his motion for postconviction relief was not entertained.
|
|||||
| State v. Ross, IK86-10-0071-R3, IK86-10-0072-R3, IK86-10-0073-R3 and IK86-10-0083-R3,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, KENT, April 9, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Post conviction relief was denied, where issues were not raised at probation hearing, sentencing, or on appeal. Defendant was not entitled to counsel at probation hearing, as issues were not complex, and allegations of innocence were not colorable.
|
|||||
| State v. Turner, IK99-10-0135-R1, IK99-10-0134-R1, IK99-10-0132-R1,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, KENT, April 9, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was not entitled to postconviction relief because his counsel represented him in a competent and effective manner and defendant failed to demonstrate any prejudice. Further, defendant's guilty plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily.
|
|||||
| Wirt v. Matthews, Civil Action No. 1999-12-271,
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, April 9, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A builder and corporation were entitled to reargument on the issue of piercing the corporate veil in a breach of contract and fraud action instituted by the clients because such a remedy was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the court of chancery.
|
|||||
| Wis. Inv. Bd. v. Bartlett, Civil Action No. 17727,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, April 9, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Partial attorney fees were awarded to investment board that failed in its attempts to enjoin merger, as investment board's actions provided therapeutic effect to other shareholders resulting from supplemental disclosures received before merger.
|
|||||
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. |
