 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Baxter v. Div. of Family Servs., No. 506, 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, May 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Del. Code Ann. tit. 13, § 1103, clear and convincing evidence supported terminating a father's parental rights as he did not appear for substance abuse treatment, attended a fraction of visits with his children, did not get housing or employment or attend parenting and anger management classes, and was incarcerated at the termination hearing.
|
|||||
| Clark v. State, Nos. 350, 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, May 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of defendant's motion for correction of sentence was affirmed as under Del. Code Ann. tit. 16, § 4767(a)(1), the authorized sentence for a conviction of possession of cocaine within 1000 feet of a school was up to 30 years of imprisonment and the original four-year sentence was authorized by statute and was legal.
|
|||||
| DaimlerChrysler v. Aakala, C.A. NO. 05A-05-005-FSS,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, May 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Delaware Industrial Accident Board's finding that an employee was not credible did not prevent it from accepting the testimony of her physicians that her industrial accident caused her physical and psychiatric symptoms because the physicians' opinions were based on objective test results and not solely on the employee's subjective complaints.
|
|||||
| Drummond v. State, No. 181, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, May 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's appeal was dismissed as claim that notice of appeal was untimely under Del. Sup. Ct. R. 6(a)(ii) and 10(a) because defendant had been sent to solitary confinement for disciplinary infraction and did not have access to personal documents did not show that untimely notice of appeal was attributable to court-related personnel.
|
|||||
| Johnson v. Williams, No. 611, 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, May 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Nisky v. State, No. 159,2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, May 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. Floyd, ID #: 0212002535,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, May 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 61(g)(2) motion was granted as, considering seriousness of defendant's assault, attempted robbery, and possession of deadly weapon convictions, 22-year prison sentence imposed, and defendant's sketchy mental condition, defense counsel should have memorialized advice he gave defendant as to appeal deadline.
|
|||||
| State v. Sullins, I.D. No. 0405017780,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, May 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defense counsel's objection under Del. R. Evid. 403 to the admission of a probation officer's testimony was properly overruled, as the evidence was highly relevant and the prejudice to defendant was neither substantial nor unfair. To the extent there was prejudice it was mitigated by an instruction. Defendant's motion for a new trial was denied.
|
|||||
| Troumouhis v. State (In re Troumouhis), C.A.NO. 04C-01-104 WCC,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, May 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court granted summary judgment to the state transportation agency and denied the tenant's Del. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 59 motion for reargument; no error occurred when the trial court concluded that the state transportation agency had a right, under a specific lease provision, to terminate lease it assumed following purchase of leased land.
|
|||||
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. |
