 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| DeAngelo v. State, No. 381, 2002,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, May 27, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not abuse its discretion by resentencing defendant who was convicted of second degree murder to 20 years' incarceration after state supreme court vacated trial court's judgment imposing 15-year sentence and remanded for resentencing.
|
|||||
| H-M Wexford LLC v. Encorp, Inc., C.A. No. 19849,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, May 27, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Private placement memorandum could not serve as basis for claims that issuer breached purchase agreement, as investor, which represented itself as an "accredited investor," presumptively understood ramifications of integration and disclaimer clauses.
|
|||||
| Hollis v. State, No. 87, 2003,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, May 27, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant's fourth motion to reduce his sentence was untimely, did not demonstrate "extraordinary circumstances," was repetitive, and provided no legal authority in support thereof, the appeal was without merit.
|
|||||
| Jackson v. State, No. 609, 2002,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, May 27, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant failed to raise his ineffective assistance of counsel claim in either of his first two postconviction petitions, the claim was procedurally barred; the trial court did not have to hold a hearing.
|
|||||
| McNair v. State, No. 145, 2003,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, May 27, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant's convictions for trafficking and possession with intent to deliver did not violate double jeopardy principles, the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion in denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence.
|
|||||
| McRae v. State, No. 2, 2003,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, May 27, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The State's motion to affirm was granted because it was manifest on the face of defendant's opening brief that the appeal was without merit where the issues presented were controlled by settled Delaware law and there was no abuse of discretion.
|
|||||
| New Castle County v. Gallen, C.A. No. 02T-04-015,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, May 27, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the owners did not explain why they did not see the posting of a tax monition or receive the notices of the certified letters, they received due process; because the court's conscience was not shocked by the sale price, it declined to set aside the sale or vacate confirmation under Del. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 69(g).
|
|||||
| Parker v. Wilk, C.A. No. 98C-12-075-JEB,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, May 27, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Loss of chance was viable cause of action in Delaware. Hospital's motion for summary judgment was granted, as injured parties failed to establish damages under either proportional approach or substantial approach to proving damages.
|
|||||
| State v. Irving, I.D. No. 9705006371,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, KENT, May 27, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: On his fifth evaluation for competency to stand trial, a Delaware defendant was again found incompetent, based in large part on anticipated difficulty in following proceedings and on tendency to lose touch with reality and hallucinate.
|
|||||
| State v. Schleifer, I.D. No. 02030006830,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, May 27, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since DUI charge was not dismissed due to defense counsel's motion, but due to State's certification that evidence that was suppressed was "necessary and integral" to prosecute defendant, State had the right to appeal the dismissal of DUI charge.
|
|||||
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. |
