 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Chambers v. State, No. 282, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, May 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An officer consulting with a State's witness during a break in testimony did not breach a sequestration order, under Del. R. Evid. 615, because the trial court allowed it after the prosecutor said the witness asked to talk to the officer, nor was defendant prejudiced, as the post-recess testimony was admissible under Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 3507.
|
|||||
| Bartholomew v. State, No. 573, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, May 22, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion to sever a boy's rape, sexual abuse, and sexual solicitation of a child charges from his brother's claims when defendant committed similar offenses against members of one family during the same three-year period, and defendant did not show how he was prejudiced by the joinder.
|
|||||
| Brooks v. State, No. 525, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, May 22, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State presented sufficient evidence to support defendant's adjudication as a habitual offender under Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 4214(a) where it offered supporting documentation of prior predicate convictions. Thus, the superior court acted within its discretion in enhancing the sentence to 145 years minimum mandatory term of incarceration.
|
|||||
| Correa v. State, C.A. No. 07X-03-003 THG,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, May 22, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an inmate did not comply with the requirement of Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, § 8804 in seeking to proceed in forma pauperis, and because the inmate did not state what he was seeking to have expunged or why he was entitled to expungement, his motion to proceed in forma pauperis was denied and the expungement petition was dismissed.
|
|||||
| Breakaway Solutions, Inc. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., C.A. No. 19522-VCN,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, KENT, May 23, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion for leave to amend in a class action, in which no class had been certified, was granted because the elimination of the class aspect of the litigation was consistent with D.C. Ch. Ct. R. 23(e), and the dismissal of class claims could be done without notice to those who might have been class members as they were sophisticated parties.
|
|||||
| Crawley v. State, No. 634, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, May 23, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was affirmed as defense counsel's tactical decision to use drug-related evidence, which defendant claimed constituted prior bad acts under Del. R. Evid. 404(b), in way he believed to be to defendant's advantage constituted waiver and barred plain error review as defense counsel cross-examined victim about his drug dealing activities.
|
|||||
| Fields v. State, No. 673, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, May 23, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A sentence imposed on defendant for violating his probation was affirmed because the appeal was wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable issue. On that basis, defense counsel's motion to withdraw under Del. Sup. Ct. R. 26(c) was moot.
|
|||||
| In re Whitehurst, No. 48, 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, May 23, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
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. |
