 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Fletcher v. State, I.D. # 0111002808,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, May 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant failed to show that trial counsels' conduct of his defense was unreasonable or that the alleged ineffective assistance resulted in any prejudice to him, and his motion for postconviction relief under Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 61 was denied. As no gun existed in evidence, failure to hire a firearms expert was not ineffective assistance.
|
|||||
| Hickman v. State, No. 593, 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, May 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a trial judge intended defendant to serve five years at Level V and completion of a drug treatment program, and did not intend that defendant's participation in the program would reduce his Level V sentence, the trial court properly denied defendant's motion for sentence modification.
|
|||||
| In re Asbestos Litig., C.A. NO. 77C-ASB-2,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, May 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Expert witness in asbestos case employed reliable methodology under Del. R. Evid. 702. He cited extensive scientific data supporting hypothesis that chrysotile caused asbestos-related disease. He showed that his own clinical practice was consistent with this data and that his experiences were confirmed by other clinicians and laboratory studies.
|
|||||
| In re Asbestos Litig., C.A. NO. 77C-ASB-2,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, May 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case involving a medical or scientific link between exposure to so-called automotive friction products and asbestos disease, an automobile corporation's motion in limine to exclude expert testimony was denied, as plaintiffs' medical and scientific evidence was appropriate under the Daubert standard.
|
|||||
| In re Watson, No. 71, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, May 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| In re Wilson, No. 104, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, May 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was suspended from the practice of law for 18 months, as recommended by the Officer of Disciplinary Counsel, rather than being placed on probation for one year, as recommended by the Board of Professional Responsibility, after the attorney failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in probating a number of estates.
|
|||||
| Khanna v. McMinn, C.A. No. 20545-NC,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, May 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Shareholders' demand was excused under Del. Ch. Ct. R. 23.1 as to corporation's acquisition of another entity and related earn-out settlement because amended complaint pled with particularity facts prompting court to find reasonable doubt as to whether transaction's approval was product of valid exercise of board's sound business judgment.
|
|||||
| Wilson v. State, No. 549, 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, May 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where inmate's claim was really that judge illegally imposed the inmate's sentence rather than imposed illegal sentence, inmate was required to file Del. Sup. Ct. Crim. R. 35(a) motion within 90 days of imposition of sentence; inmate did not file Rule 35 motion until 17 months after date judge sentenced inmate and thus, claim was time barred.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
