 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Clemmons v. Lifecare at Lofland Park, C.A. No. 02A-07-004-RFS,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, April 25, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A determination that a claimant was ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits was supported by evidence that she was totally disabled, and therefore unavailable for work.
|
|||||
| Constellation New Energy, Inc. v. PSC, CIVIL ACTION NUMBER 02A-07-007-JOH,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, April 25, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Public Service Commission of Delaware's approval of settlement of application to transfer indirect control of utilities was affirmed, as the standard of review was whether there was substantial evidence that the settlement was in the public interest.
|
|||||
| Frazier v. IMED Corp., C.A. No. 01C-11-241 RRC (Consolidated Case),
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, April 25, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a patient's action alleging medical negligence and failure to process her benefit claims properly, the trial court granted her motion to redact portions of her past criminal report that listed dispositions which were not admissible convictions.
|
|||||
| Harris v. State, No. 706, 2002,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, April 25, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant failed to raise meritorious issue for appeal where his 30-year sentence remained in tact and the Level V time reimposed for his violation of probation was within the amount of Level V time remaining on his two earlier sentences.
|
|||||
| Johnson v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., C.A. 02C-05-274-FSS,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, April 25, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a mother cared for an injured insured out of natural care and concern, and neither an insurance policy nor a statute allowed recovery for substitute services not framed as a reimbursement, the insurer was entitled to summary judgment.
|
|||||
| Mainiero v. Tanter, C.A. No. 18128,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, April 25, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When plaintiffs did not appear for the trial court's calendar call, over four months after their counsel had been disqualified, their complaint was dismissed, but defendant was not entitled to attorney's fees, costs, or other requested relief.
|
|||||
| Rowe v. Kim, C.A. No. 00C-08-226,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, April 25, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was no basis in law or in fact for the patient's motion for a new trial. Nowhere in the Health Care Medical Negligence statute was there a requirement that the information be provided in written form.
|
|||||
| Walton v. State, No. 59, 2002,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, April 25, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was not shown to have displayed what appeared to be deadly weapon when he went into bank and passed note demanding money and stating that he had a bomb, as there was no evidence of conduct that could reasonably be construed as a "display."
|
|||||
| Wilmington Trust Co. v. Politzer & Haney, Inc., C.A. No. 02C-05-138-FSS,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, April 25, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In Massachusetts, contracting party could not escape liability for misrepresentation by resort to damage limitation and integration clauses, and could not be insulated by resort to exculpatory provision, when claim was based on tort theory of fraud.
|
|||||
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. |
