 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Jakotowicz v. Hyundai Motor Am., C.A. No. 04C-05-298 RRC,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, August 17, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Car buyer's breach of warranty claim was based on a "repair or replace" warranty and not a "future performance" warranty and, thus, "future performance" exception to the applicable four-year limitations in Del. Code Ann. tit. 6, ¿ 2-725(1) did not apply, which meant her claim filed more than four years after she purchased the car was time-barred.
|
|||||
| Jenkins v. State, No. 12, 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, August 17, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the trial court properly relied on aggravating factors to justify an enhanced sentence under Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, ¿ 4205(b)(3) for fourth-degree rape under Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, ¿ 770, defendant's appeal under Del. Sup. Ct. R. 26(c) was without merit.
|
|||||
| Reid v. Hindt, C.A. No. 01C-10-046 JTV,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, KENT, August 17, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The evidence did not establish a connection between a construction company's conduct and an accident in which a driver was involved. Even if there were fewer than two flaggers on the construction site and even if a line of cones was unusually short, a jury could not conclude that the company's acts or omissions were a proximate cause.
|
|||||
| Smith v. State, No. 61, 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, August 17, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because Del. Const. art. I, ¿ 20 did not alter the existing law governing the right to carry a concealed weapon, and because defendant waived the right to dispute the underlying facts of a stipulation, he was properly convicted of possession of a deadly weapon by a person prohibited and of carrying a concealed deadly weapon.
|
|||||
| State v. Sudler, I.D. No. 9507003490,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, August 17, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Postconviction relief petition was summarily dismissed for not being filed within three years after defendant's conviction was final and not asserting a newly recognized retroactive right. Petition did not support conclusory allegations of ineffective trial counsel or illegal sentence so as to satisfy Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 61(i)(5) exception.
|
|||||
| At&T Wireless Servs. v. Fed. Ins. Co., C.A. No. 03C-12-232 WCC,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, August 18, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a successor sought to dismiss claims against an insurer as successor's insurer only, not as corporation's insurer, it would have dismissed fewer than all claims against insurer, and that was not permissible under Del. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 41. However, since notice would have dismissed entire action against another insurer, it was proper.
|
|||||
| Barkley v. Johnson Controls, C.A. No: 04C-10-024 RBY,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, KENT, August 18, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an employer did not timely appeal a worker's compensation decision, the benefits became due when the appeals period expired; because more than 30 days elapsed after the employee's demand for payment, the employee was entitled to liquidated damages and attorney's fees under Del. Code Ann. tit. 19, ¿¿ 2350(f), 1113(a), 2357.
|
|||||
| In re Silver Leaf, L.L.C., C.A. No. 20611,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, August 18, 2005, Decided , August 18, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under judicial dissolution statute, Del. Code Ann. tit. 6, ¿ 18-802, trial court ordered limited liability company be dissolved; evidence showed it was not reasonably practicable to carry on business of marketing French fry vending machine because its only asset, a sales and marketing agreement, was terminated by machine's manufacturing company.
|
|||||
| Landis v. State, No. 523, 2004,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, August 18, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant juvenile did not show how a witness's testimony would have benefitted his defense, his motion for a continuance was properly denied; because defendant restrained the victims by their wrists so that they were pulled alongside of a moving vehicle, he was guilty of reckless endangerment under Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, ¿ 604.
|
|||||
| State v. Laurent, ID No. 0312016114,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, August 18, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to suppress was denied where affidavit supporting search warrant showed that defendant's roommate and co-defendant was involved in drug activity, that informant's information concerning use of a courier to transfer drug money from the house was corroborated, and where co-defendant had already been the target of a drug investigation.
|
|||||
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. |
