 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| UniSuper Ltd. v. News Corp., C.A.No. 1699-N,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, May 31, 2006, Decided , May 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a class action suit involving a corporation's extension of a "poison pill," the court declined to approve a proposed settlement. It was overly broad in that the parties attempted to release claims arising from a plan to be adopted in the future and in that it purported to apply to "hidden or concealed" claims.
|
|||||
| Washington v. Dep't of Corr., C.A.No. 05M-10-076 WCC,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, May 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When an inmate said prison policy was violated when a certain employee participated in the inmate's disciplinary hearing and when that hearing's decision was not issued in 10 days, he was not entitled to a writ of mandamus requiring the correction department to comply with the policy because he did not show that he had no adequate remedy at law.
|
|||||
| Webb v. Taylor, No. 543, 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, May 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an inmate did not demonstrate that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the charges or that the indictment was invalid on its face, he failed to demonstrate any error or abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
|
|||||
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. |
