 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Crescent/Mach I P'ship, L.P. v. Turner, C.A. No. 17455-VCN, C.A. No. 17711-VCN,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, May 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case arising from a corporate merger, a 3% volume growth projection estimate was a CEO's truthful and reasonable estimate; thus, the CEO exercised faithfully his fiduciary duties. Using the discounted cash flow method, the fair value of each share of the corporation's common stock, as of the date of the merger, was $ 32.31.
|
|||||
| Gray v. Allstate Ins. Co., C.A. No. 05C-07-016-ESB,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, May 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was granted to insurer as pedestrian was not entitled to personal injury protection (PIP) benefits under Del. Code Ann. tit. 21, § 2118(a)(2)(a) since he was not involved in accident with insured. Pedestrian was, for purposes of PIP statute, pedestrian injured by accident with fourth driver's vehicle, not insured's vehicle.
|
|||||
| Hifn, Inc. v. Intel Corp., C.A. No. 1835-VCS,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, May 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Licensee was granted summary judgment on a developer's breach of contract claim because, although the court rejected the licensee's contention that time was of the essence in the parties' contract, the developer failed to perform its obligations within a reasonable time and thus committed a total breach of the contract on that basis.
|
|||||
| In re Abbott, No. 676, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, May 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney's arguments in briefs violated Del. Law. R. Prof. Conduct 3.5(d), conduct degrading to a tribunal, and Del. Law. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(d), conduct prejudicial to administration of justice; those arguments impugned the integrity of a tribunal, caused the waste of judicial resources, and dictated that the attorney be publicly reprimanded.
|
|||||
| In re Appraisal of Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc., Civil Action No. 1554-CC,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, May 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court found that record holder could exercise appraisal rights, pursuant to Del. Code Ann. tit. 8, § 262, for all 10,972,650 contested shares that beneficial shareholders owned; the fact that the record holder voted shares in favor and against the merger did not preclude request for appraisal of those shares not voted in favor of the merger.
|
|||||
| Pugh v. Wal-Mart Stores, C.A. No. 06A-05-005 (JTV),
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, KENT, May 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because there was no evidence that a workers' compensation claimant would receive any future benefits, the Industrial Accident Board did not err in failing to consider future benefits when rendering its Del. Code Ann. tit. 19, § 2320(10)(a) attorneys' fee award; the Board adequately addressed each factor enunciated in Cox as required.
|
|||||
| State v. Benge, Def. ID # 0210012355B,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, May 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court denied defendant's two postconviction motions to challenge the guilty pleas entered to two separate criminal charges involving three offenses after he was sentenced and he did not appeal; Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 61(i)(3) barred consideration of those claims since his claims were known at time he was sentenced, yet were not raised.
|
|||||
| In re Herring, No. 107, 2007,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, May 3, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an inmate failed to demonstrate a clear right to any transcripts beyond those he had already received or that the trial court arbitrarily failed or refused to provide him with the transcripts, he had no basis for the issuance of a writ of mandamus under Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(6), Del. Sup. Ct. R. 43.
|
|||||
| LaPoint v. Amerisource Bergen Corp., Civil Action No. 327-CC,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, May 3, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiffs' motion in limine to bar testimony of a witness in breach of contract case was denied because testimony to explain witness's understanding of "custom and use" of contract terms in accounting industry was proper. Another witness's testimony as to his understanding of agreement during time that he acted as negotiator was proper.
|
|||||
| McKee v. McKee, C.A. No. 17773-VCN,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, KENT, May 3, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant, decedent's former wife, was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff estate's action to vindicate the decedent's claim to a one-half equity interest in a marina because there was no credible direct evidence that the former wife ever promised decedent a one-half (or any other specific fractional) interest in the marina.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
