 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Crowhorn v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., C.A. No. 00C-06-010,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, KENT, May 1, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Expenses submitted for the unjustified effort the insured was required to expend to procure the insurer's response to the insured's requests for admissions were reasonable, and the insured was awarded such expenses.
|
|||||
| Dunkle v. Prettyman, C.A. No. 99C-10-265 JRS,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, May 1, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Accident victim's motion for a new trial or additur was denied as the jury's award did not shock the conscience of the court, and the court awarded costs to the other party because the amount of the award was less than the settlement offered.
|
|||||
| State v. Cannon, Def. ID # 0008014714,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, May 1, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant had knowingly and voluntarily entered a plea of guilty to a trafficking in cocaine charge, he was deemed to have waived his right to seek postconviction relief on issues such as suppression and lack of probable cause to charge him.
|
|||||
| In re Fuqua Indus., S'holder Litig., CONSOLIDATED Civil Action No. 11974,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, May 2, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court granted shareholders' motion to compel production of documents; except for some work product, corporation's documents were not yet protected by attorney-client privilege since shareholders still had mutuality of interest with corporation.
|
|||||
| In re Hiner, No. 543, 2001,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, May 2, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Three year suspension of attorney from practice of law was found to be appropriate, where attorney, among other things, failed to pay taxes, failed to maintain proper records, and failed to represent client diligently.
|
|||||
| Marvin v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., C.A. No. 01C-01-092(CHT),
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, May 2, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a holding limited to the unique circumstances of the case, excluding a motorcycle driver from personal injury protection (PIP) coverage under his mother's policy, where no other coverage for PIP was available, was deemed against public policy.
|
|||||
| Meades v. State, No. 108, 2002,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, May 2, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant's double jeopardy argument had been argued in his postconviction appeal and in his habeas corpus petition, law of case doctrine prohibited issue from being relitigated in motion to correct sentence.
|
|||||
| State v. Brown, I.D. No. 0105022893,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, May 2, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant did not tell court that she was unable to read, and defendant signed plea forms stating that she was satisfied with her attorney, and that she was entering her guilty plea voluntarily, her postconviction relief motion was dismissed.
|
|||||
| State v. Thomas, I.D. No. 0105012352,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, May 2, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Possibility that defendant would not be able to use his residence for purposes of home confinement was collateral consequence of guilty plea; fact that he was not informed of possibility did not affect knowingness or voluntariness of plea.
|
|||||
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. |
