 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ferguson v. Town of Dewey Beach, C.A. No. 04C-08-004,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, April 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was granted to defendants as to plaintiff's claims of malicious prosecution and false arrest because the police had probable cause to arrest defendant for public intoxication and other charges, as defendant pled guilty to a charge of resisting arrest, and therefore the criminal action was not terminated in his favor.
|
|||||
| State v. Hicks, ID # 0410023146A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, April 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant had no right to a new trial based on newly discovered evidence; evidence in woman's affidavit, submitted long after trial, could have been obtained for trial. He knew her and that she could testify to events, and his statement was contradictory and conclusory and not too credible in light of his criminal record and diminished credibility.
|
|||||
| Berger v. Intelident Solutions, No. 596,2005,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, April 26, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A chancery court erred in granting dismissal of a complaint on the grounds of forum non conveniens, as there was no overwhelming hardship shown by maintaining the action in Delaware under the Cryo-Maid factors; there was no other litigation, no service or viewing issues, and the applicability of Florida law did not support dismissal.
|
|||||
| Del. Open MRI Radiology Assocs., P.A. v. Kessler, Consolidated C.A.No. 275-N,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, April 26, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A squeeze-out merger of minority stockholders was deemed unfair by the majority stockholders where the minority did not receive a fair value for their shares; pursuant to an appraisal and entire fairness action, the proper value was determined, with a prejudgment interest award which was to be compounded monthly.
|
|||||
| Backus v. State, No. 59,2005,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, April 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Connelly-Yancy v. Nationwide Gen. Ins. Co., C.A. No.: 04C-05-166-MJB,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, April 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A settlement was not admissible under Del. R. Evid. 408 as the probative value of the settlement was outweighed by the prejudicial effect of the proposed evidence, and, as there was no real issue of jury confusion or the potential for the jury to misunderstand the alignment of the parties, there was no need to disclose the fact of a settlement.
|
|||||
| Mendiola v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., C.A. No.: 05C-06-159 JRJ,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, April 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A motion to vacate default judgment under Del. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 60(b) was denied; an insurer's experienced employees mishandled contract complaint, mistaking it for duplicate of one in a personal injury case. Mere negligence was not inadvertence or excusable neglect, and extraordinary circumstances had to be beyond employees' mere negligence.
|
|||||
| Smith v. State, No. 112, 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, April 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's convictions for murder, robbery, and other crimes were affirmed; defendant was not entitled to a justification instruction pursuant to Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, ¿ 464(a), as under defendant's version of the facts he had committed no crime for which he was charged, nor did he act intending to promote or facilitate the robbery or murder.
|
|||||
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. |
