 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bear-Glasgow Dental, LLC v. Edwards, C.A. No. 06A-06-013,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, May 29, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits under Del. Code Ann. tit. 19, § 3314 as her employer was not required to give her a subsequent, unequivocal warning about excessive tardiness before it had just cause to fire her; a prior written warning was sufficient notice even if 15 occurrences of tardiness took place after that.
|
|||||
| Lewis v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., C.A. No. 04C-09-238-FSS,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, May 29, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insureds, who were awarded damages on their underinsured motorist claim against an insurer, were not entitled to prejudgment interest. The insureds had not placed their policy into the record; thus, the court had no reason to hold that interest began to accrue before the jury decided what the insurer owed on the insureds' personal injury claim.
|
|||||
| Beal Bank, S.S.B. v. Westpoint Int'l, Inc., Civil Action No. 2617-CC,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, May 30, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a pledgor filed bankruptcy and its pledgee sued the buyer of the pledged stock and its directors for, inter alia, breach of fiduciary duties, buyer and directors' motion to dismiss under Del. Ch. Ct. R. 12(b)(6) was denied because the question of what rights pledgee held in its lien on buyer's new stock was best answered by bankruptcy court.
|
|||||
| Ginsburg v. Phila. Stock Exch., Inc., Civil Action No. 2202-CC,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, May 30, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Based on investor's discovery rights under Del. Ch. Ct. R. 26(b)(1), investment company defendants could not unilaterally limit their responses to a request for communications by and among those defendants to a certain time period as the discovery record indicated communications relevant to the question of collusion took place prior to that time.
|
|||||
| McDonalds v. Fountain, C.A. No. 06A-08-003 WLW,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, KENT, May 30, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an employee's action for additional compensation for medical expenses, a doctor's letter report was properly excluded because the fact that the parties' experts reviewed the report an testified about it did not make the actual report admissible under Del. R. Evid. 703; thus, the report was inadmissible hearsay.
|
|||||
| St. Paul Travelers Prop. Cas. Corp. v. Hoffman, C.A. No. 1341-VCN,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, KENT, May 30, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: UM arbitration award in insured's favor was confirmed under Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, § 5713 as insured failed to raise any of statutorily prescribed grounds under Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, § 5714(a); the insured's claim that the award did not adequately compensate him failed as the court could not substitute its judgment for that of the arbitrators.
|
|||||
| Xpress Mgmt. v. Hot Wings Int'l, Inc., C.A. No. 2856-VCL,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, May 30, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Stockholder's petition for a judicial dissolution of a Delaware corporation under Del. Code Ann. tit. 8, § 273 was stayed because the chancery court exercised its discretion to stay the proceeding pending the outcome of first-filed pending litigation in Canada.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
