 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| In re Topps Co. S'holders Litig., C.A. No. 2786-VCS,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, May 9, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Corporate directors' motion to dismiss or stay a consolidated shareholder class action in Delaware was denied under the internal affairs doctrine because, although a similar suit was pending in a New York court, the case was about the responsibilities of directors of a Delaware corporation to the corporation and its stockholders under Delaware law.
|
|||||
| JNK, LLC v. Kent County Reg'l Planning Comm'n, C.A. No: 06C-03-066(RBY),
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, KENT, May 9, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Reviewing court was unable to reach the merits of an appeal of the denial of a subdivision application, because a regional planning commission failed to make any reference to specific facts adduced at the hearings or specific legal provisions that would support the commission's determination as required by Del. Code Ann. tit. 9, § 4811.
|
|||||
| Kiser v. State, No. 663, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, May 9, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in summarily denying defendant's second motion for postconviction relief from drug delivery and conspiracy convictions, pursuant to Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 61, as he did not show trial court misapplied the procedural bars of that rule and the record did not reflect a basis upon which to apply an exception to those bars.
|
|||||
| Parfi Holding AB v. Mirror Image Internet, Inc., No. 344, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, May 9, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: After appellants' counsel withdrew, the trial court erred in dismissing their case with prejudice on grounds their new counsel would not enter an unconditional appearance that could not be withdrawn, because Del. Law. R. Prof. Conduct 1.16(a)(1) required attorneys to withdraw under specified circumstances.
|
|||||
| Ross v. State, No. 133, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, May 9, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Presence of police officers following defendant and requesting to speak to him did not constitute seizure under Del. Const. art. I, § 6. Defendant was not seized until he was ordered to stop and restrained by police; when police exercised show of verbal authority and physical force, they had reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity.
|
|||||
| State v. MacDonald, ID No. 90010077DI,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, May 9, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 61 motion was denied as inmate failed to establish that either his appellate counsel or his trial counsel was ineffective; inter alia, inmate failed to establish factors set out in Gray for ineffective assistance regarding failure to raise appellate issue and trial counsel raised appropriate objections.
|
|||||
| State v. Sa Vinon, ID #: 0510012847,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, May 9, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
