 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Mason v. State, No. 539, 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, May 23, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because it was not clear whether the trial court meant to substitute the Crest program for home confinement or meant to add it to defendant's sentence, and because it was not clear whether the trial court actually intended to increase the total sentence, the case was remanded to the trial court for clarification.
|
|||||
| Wenke v. GAICO, No. 446, 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, May 23, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because both an employee and a former co-worker testified that when they took off their protective masks and suits, there was still asbestos in the air and that they breathed, the Industrial Accident Board did not err when it applied the last injurious exposure rule; therefore, the trial court erred in reversing the Board's decision.
|
|||||
| Anglo Am. Sec. Fund, L.P. v. S.R. Global Int'l Fund, L.P., Civil Action No. 20066-N,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, May 24, 2006, Decided , May 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Brown v. State, No. 356, 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, May 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sentence imposed following a contested violation of probation hearing was affirmed because defendant's subsequent guilty plea to a new criminal charge led the court to conclude that his appeal, which arose from the same criminal conduct to which he pled guilty, was wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable issue.
|
|||||
| Delta & Pine Land Co. v. Monsanto Co., C. A. No. 1970-N,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, May 24, 2006, Decided , May 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court granted a licensee summary judgment on the licensee's claim that the licensor was bound to arbitrate the parties' dispute because the parties' option and license agreements expressed the parties' shared intention that disputes under the license agreement be submitted to arbitration, and the licensee did not waive its right to arbitration.
|
|||||
| Eaddy v. State, No. 47, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, May 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State's motion to affirm the Superior Court's denial of defendant's motion for postconviction relief was granted, as defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claims were either known, or should have been known, to him when he filed his previous postconviction motion. Moreover, review in the interest of justice was unwarranted.
|
|||||
| State v. Curtis, Cr.A. No. 04-04-0100,0105 Def. ID No. 0403022466,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, May 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because it was obvious that defendant was not coerced into taking a plea under Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 11(d) and that counsel's representation did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness, defendant's motion for postconviction relief was denied.
|
|||||
| State v. Drummond, Def. ID # 0311018699A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, May 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. Jackson, I.D. # 85007363DI & # 86000928DI,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, May 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion for sentence modification was denied; as defendant's maximum sentence expiration date was not until the year 2012, he was properly still on parole in 1999 when he incurred new criminal charges. Thus, the board of parole had authority to revoke defendant's parole in January 2005.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
