 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Hicks v. State, No. 627, 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, May 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Hill v. Hernandez, C.A. No. 02C-11-239-JRJ,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, May 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a driver, who was in the country illegally and uninsured, was involved in a hit and run collision and did not have the owner's express or implied consent to drive the vehicle, the plaintiff's uninsured/underinsured motorist carrier was obligated to pay the stipulated damages, and not the owner's liability carrier.
|
|||||
| Shadewell Grove IP, LLC v. Mrs. Fields Franchising, LLC, Civil Action No. 1691-N,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, May 8, 2006, Decided , May 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a suit over alleged breach of licensing agreements, the parties did not orally modify the agreements to allow plaintiff to cure its default, and defendant did not waive its termination rights. As there was no evidence the parties intended payments to be applied in a specific fashion, they had to be allocated pro rata across all the agreements.
|
|||||
| Shockley v. State, No. 599, 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, May 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of defendant's new trial motion under Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 33 was affirmed as defendant failed to show that the medical records that were not presented to a doctor conducting a presentencing evaluation could not have been discovered before trial by the exercise of due diligence.
|
|||||
| State v. Downes, Defendant ID No. 9408020702,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, May 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's second motion for post-conviction relief was denied as it was time-barred under Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 33 and 61(i)(1); defendant's invitation to apply federal law and procedure to state postconviction application was rejected. Further, claim that trial court and another judge conspired to convict defendant was wrong.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
