 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Beeghley v. Hilk, No. 136, 2002,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, April 17, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appeal was dismissed as premature since superior court's letter ruling regarding trial date and briefing schedule for certain motion was not its final act in case and since appellant did not comply with steps for taking interlocutory appeal.
|
|||||
| Borders v. Townsend Assocs., C.A. No. 98L-12-023-RFS,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, April 17, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Failure of partnership's general partners to sign mortgage modification in front of notary public, who acknowledged signatures outside their presence, did not void instrument, which was regular on its face, because of curative statute and estoppel.
|
|||||
| Dempsey v. New Castle County Bd. of Adjustment, C.A. No: 01A-10-004 RSG,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, April 17, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A local zoning board's conclusion that variances were area variances rather than use variances was entitled to great deference; the board applied the correct standard of review, and its decision was supported by substantial evidence.
|
|||||
| Evans v. State, No. 1, 2002,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, April 17, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant failed to show any way in which his counsel's purported deficiencies rendered his guilty plea involuntary, so his post-conviction relief petition was denied.
|
|||||
| Pratt v. L & E Auto., Civil Action No. 2001-10-011,
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, April 17, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Raiford v. State, No. 30, 2002,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, April 17, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of motion for postconviction relief was affirmed, as it was manifest from record that defendant's motion was procedurally barred because it was untimely and repetitive, and defendant failed to make a showing to overcome procedural bar.
|
|||||
| Scholl v. Murphy, C.A. No. 2025-S,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, April 17, 2002, Final Report
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although decedent suffered from dementia, he had testamentary capacity when will was executed. He was aware of his assets, he understood that he was leaving them to friend rather than to his children, and he knew who and where his children were.
|
|||||
| Sewell v. State, No. 635, 2001,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, April 17, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Regardless of defendant's prior record, he admitted to probation violations. Judge only had to be satisfied that defendant's conduct was not as good as required by probation terms and conditions.
|
|||||
| Taylor v. State, No. 406, 2001,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, April 17, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of motion for postconviction relief without evidentiary hearing was proper; claims were procedurally barred since motion was untimely and issues either had been formerly adjudicated or were not raised in prior postconviction motions.
|
|||||
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. |
