 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Burns v. Lavender Hill Herb Farm, Inc., C.A. No. 02C-11-059, C.A.No. 03C-03-192,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, May 30, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a plaintiff had failed to appear for a hearing after he refiled his state case after dismissal from federal court, because he had demonstrated a familiarity with the process, his abuse of process action and legal malpractice action against two groups of defendants required involuntary dismissal under Del. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
|
|||||
| Hendry v. Hendry, Civil Action No. 12236, Civil Action No. 18625,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, May 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a father and son settled a land dispute, the son released his interest, as a partner in the land's lessee, in its rents. Res judicata barred a post-settlement claim to the rents, as it was or could have been raised in earlier litigation. The father's widow could sue the son, under Del. Ch. Ct. R. 17(a), as the father's estate's administratrix.
|
|||||
| Hyatt v. Toys "R" Us, Inc., C.A. No. 99C-12-152-JEB,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, May 30, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Store's motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict was granted because once the jury determined that the store was not negligent in assembling the bicycle that broke and injured plaintiff, there was no rational basis for a finding that the alleged defect existed at the time of sale.
|
|||||
| State v. Henry, I.D. No. 9907011052,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, May 30, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion to reduce two consecutive 20-year sentences for second-degree murder and possession of firearm during commission of felony was denied as defendant intentionally took life of victim, jury did not have power to determine defendant's sentence, and defendant had derived maximum benefit from jury's compromise verdict.
|
|||||
| State v. Jurbala, Defendant ID No. 0103019845,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, May 30, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion for postconviction relief was denied as defendant's claim that there was false testimony resulting in violation of probation was procedurally denied under Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 61(i)(3) as defendant abandoned appeal and failed to explain cause for failing to pursue issue in appeal. Prejudice prong was also not addressed.
|
|||||
| State v. Patterson, I.D. No. 0502000662,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, May 30, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: No right to judgment of acquittal existed; State proved each element of delivery of non-narcotic Schedule IV controlled substance under Del. Code Ann. tit. 16, § 4720(b)(27). Ambien was non-narcotic, a term not defined in Del. Code Ann. tit. 16, § 4701, and it was thus sufficient for State to prove that Ambien was Schedule IV controlled substance.
|
|||||
| State v. Roberts, ID No. 0503018656,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, May 30, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion under Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 61 was denied as defendant was bound by statements that he was satisfied with attorney's representation and that attorney had fully advised him of rights. Letter offered by defendant from attorney did not show that defendant entered plea due to misapprehension or mistake as to legal options.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
