 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Lawhorn v. New Castle County, C.A. No. 05A-06-007-JRS,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, May 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Industrial accident board properly dismissed a worker's petition for additional workers' compensation benefits, as the claim for medical benefits was made outside of the Del. Code Ann. tit. 19, § 2361(b) five-year statute of limitations for such claims and the worker was given adequate notice of the statute of limitations.
|
|||||
| State v. Robinson, I.D. No. 0509019148,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, May 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The Fourth Amendment and Del. Const. art. I, § 6, were not implicated when blood was drawn; hospital staff chose to draw defendant's blood, and no State official said to. An officer, in asking if alcohol was involved, was only investigating; facts of accident gave him probable cause to think that defendant was drinking and had killed his passenger.
|
|||||
| Angstadt v. Lippman, C.A. NO. 04C-02-041 (RBY),
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, KENT, May 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff's motion for reargument was denied under Del. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 59(e) as letter from attorney in firm of plaintiff's counsel alleging that he represented person in accident with juror's vehicle and that he would protect client did not show that juror "knew" letter writer for purposes of truthfulness of voir dire question.
|
|||||
| Clark v. State, No. 417, 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, May 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant advised the trial court that he would seek acquittal based on the time that the crimes of first-degree and second-decree unlawful sexual intercourse and continuous sexual abuse of a child were allegedly committed, the trial court properly instructed the jury that the dates of the offenses were not elements of the crimes.
|
|||||
| I.U. N. Am., Inc. v. A.I.U. Ins. Co., C.A. No. 01C-02-007MJB,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, May 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Non-movant insurer was granted summary judgment under Del. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 56(c); insurer showed that no ambiguity existed in settlement agreement with insureds and that insurer had to reimburse them only for personal injury sums paid to asbestos claimants. Other sums that insureds paid were not made for asbestos-related personal injuries.
|
|||||
| Roth v. State, No. 306, 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, May 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since the appellate court reviewed the arguments the prisoner contended would have been included in his reply brief and did not find that they would have altered the decision of the trial court on the prisoner's motion for postconviction relief, no prejudice was suffered by the prisoner as a result of the trial court's failure to review his brief.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
