 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Birowski v. State, No. 201, 2007,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, June 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's appeal from the denial of his motion for a modification of sentence was dismissed under Del. Sup. Ct. R. 29(b) because his claim that he was not aware of the time limitation and his pro se status did not excuse his failure to comply with Del. Sup. Ct. R. 6; the failure was not attributable to court-related personnel.
|
|||||
| Drake v. State, No. 436, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, June 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant clearly revoked his request to represent himself after trial judge explained risks in response to defendant's statement he wanted fair trial. Defendant was not entitled to a claim-of-right instruction under Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 847(a), because such an instruction was only available in theft and extortion cases, not in robbery cases.
|
|||||
| In re Lewis, No. 203, 2007,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, June 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| In re Sample, No. 232, 2007,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, June 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner was not entitled to an extraordinary writ under Del. Sup. Ct. R. 43 to compel a superior court to grant his motion for postconviction relief by default because the motion had been denied already and a writ of mandamus could not be used as a substitute for a timely filed appeal.
|
|||||
| In re Shockley, No. 198, 2007,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, June 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| In re Taylor, No. 147, 2007,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, June 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the trial court was aware of defendant's pending motions, including an amended postconviction motion, and intended to rule upon the motions in due course, defendant did not demonstrate that the trial court arbitrarily failed or refused to act upon his amended postconviction motion; thus, defendant was not entitled to a writ of mandamus.
|
|||||
| Khomenko v. Levitskiy, C.A. No. 05C-12-081-JRS,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, June 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Accident victim's motion for new trial was denied because, under the plain error standard, the defense counsel's comments in closing argument to the jury were not improper, and the defense presented sufficient evidence for the jury to find that the victim suddenly, and without warning, brought his bicycle into the car driver's lane of travel.
|
|||||
| Kibler v. Wooters, C.A. No. 1351-VCN,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, KENT, June 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Decedent's sister was liable to decedent's daughter for the proceeds of the sale of decedent's house because the sister failed to demonstrate that her acquiring the proceeds was intended by decedent; also, the sister's use of funds from a joint account to purchase a house was a fraudulent transfer under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act.
|
|||||
| L&W Ins., Inc. v. Harrington, Civil Action No. 2730-VCP,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, June 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An award of attorneys' fees and costs to a former employee was premature when an employer was denied injunctive relief to prevent the employee from soliciting the employer's clients while arbitration of a noncompetition clause was pending. The arbitrator could reach a different conclusion about the merits of the employer's claims.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
