 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| In re Yahoo! Inc. S'holders Litig., Civil Action No. 3561-CC,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, July 11, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because no special circumstances existed that justified denial of a stay of discovery under Del. Ch. Ct. R. 26(c) and the attendant imposition of the burden of continued discovery, a stay of discovery was warranted pending resolution of the dispositive motion to dismiss.
|
|||||
| Evans v. State, No. 657, 2007,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, July 14, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant's claims were time-barred, repetitive, and otherwise procedurally barred by Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 61(i)(1)-(3), and because the procedural bars of Rule 61(i) were constitutional, defendant's postconviction motion, which was filed more than 20 years after his conviction, was properly denied.
|
|||||
| Hartman v. State, No. 485, 2007,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, July 14, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's convictions for second degree rape, fourth degree rape, and third degree unlawful sexual contact did not violate double jeopardy principles because although the criminal conduct was similar on each occasion, defendant formed a separate intent on each occasion to commit a distinct criminal act against his daughter.
|
|||||
| Hazel v. Del. Supermarkets, Inc., No. 210, 2007,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, July 14, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: It was improper to grant a store owner summary judgment in a customer's action to recover for injuries she sustained when she fell in its supermarket because the customer made a sufficient showing that there was an unsafe condition, that the owner should have been aware of the condition, and that the owner was negligent in failing to discover it.
|
|||||
| Jenkins v. State, No. 594, 2007,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, July 14, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was not entitled to the modification under Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 35(b) of his sentence for a violation of probation because the motion at issue was his second such motion and the motion was not filed within 90 days of sentencing.
|
|||||
| Lewis v. State, No. 161, 2008,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, July 14, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Sprint Nextel Corp. v. iPCS, Inc., Civil Action No. 3746-VCP,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, July 14, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to dismiss all claims against two affiliated entities was granted because personal jurisdiction did not exist as to them under Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, § 3104(c)(1) in that prior litigation between the parties in Delaware and the fact that their parent corporation was a Delaware corporation did not convey personal jurisdiction over them.
|
|||||
| State v. Monroe, I.D. No. 0601021343,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, July 14, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was not entitled to sever charges arising from two incidents that occurred 15 months apart under Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 14 because Del. R. Evid. 404(b) would likely allow the introduction in an initial murder trial of the evidence of the attempted murder of the same victim as part of motive and/or intent.
|
|||||
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. |
