 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Epperson v. State, No. 123, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, June 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State's motion to affirm the superior court's judgment of dismissal related to defendant's motion for postconviction relief under Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 61 was granted because it was evident that defendant's claims were defaulted and there was no evidence of a miscarriage of justice. Superior court was not required to reach the merits.
|
|||||
| Gildor v. Optical Solutions, Inc., C.A. No. 1416-N,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, June 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A preferred shareholder was entitled to summary judgment, as a company did not fulfill its contractual duty to notify the shareholder of his opportunity to exercise his preemptive rights and participate in a new round of preferred equity financing. The stockholders' agreement had a clear notice provision, which the company did not satisfy.
|
|||||
| In re Humes, No. 99, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, June 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Request for a writ of mandamus, pursuant to Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(6) and Del. Sup. Ct. R. 43, was dismissed because petitioner could not seek such relief pro se when petitioner was represented by appointed counsel. Petition could not be used to compel a particular decision from the trial court or to compel the Attorney General to act.
|
|||||
| Lions Gate Entm't Corp. v. Image Entm't, Inc., Civil Action No. 2011-N,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, June 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Shareholder was granted summary judgment in its declaratory judgment action against a corporation as a provision of the corporation's bylaws creating a classified board under Del. Code Ann. tit. 8, § 141(d) was clear and unambiguous, and the corporation's board did not have the power to amend the bylaws under Del. Code Ann. tit. 8, §§ 109 and 242.
|
|||||
| Lowry v. Wright, C.A. No. 20185-NC,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, KENT, June 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff landowners held a prescriptive easement over property owned by defendant landowners because they established that property was regularly used by plaintiffs to get from their home to a nearby street, that their use was exclusive to public at large, and that they had used property as an access way for over 20 years, under a claim of right.
|
|||||
| Millius v. Tillman, C.A.No. 05C-09-107MJB,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, June 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court granted truck driver and truck driver employer's motion to compel the vocational examination of claimant; Del. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 35(a)'s use of term "examiner" regarding examinations by a suitably certified examiner that could be compelled included those by a vocational specialist, and good cause existed for ordering such an exam.
|
|||||
| Spencer v. Wal-Mart Stores E., LP, C.A. No. 04C-08-144-PLA,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, June 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a slip and fall personal injury case, a motion in limine was granted to the retailer, pursuant to Del. R. Evid. 702 and the Daubert standard, because the proposed expert did not have any specialized knowledge about snow and ice removal and the expert's testimony would not assist the jury.
|
|||||
| State v. Winn, I.D. No. 0601012860,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, June 5, 2006, Oral Decision; July 3, 2006, Written Decision
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the police did not have reasonable suspicion that defendant was involved with other criminal activity, their detention of defendant beyond the scope of a traffic violation infringed on defendant's rights against unlawful searches and seizures in U.S. Const. amends. IV, XIV, and Del. Const. art. I, § 6.
|
|||||
| Vasquez v. State, No. 127, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, June 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State's motion to affirm denial of a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 61 was granted because defendant's motion was filed beyond the three-year limitation period and defendant had not provided any evidence that the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
|
|||||
| Williamson v. Cox Communs., Inc., C.A. No. 1663-N,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, June 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A complaint alleging that cable companies breached their fiduciary duty as shareholders to a corporation survived their motion to dismiss under Del. Ch. Ct. R. 12(b)(6), as it pled facts suggesting that they were in a controlling position which they exploited for their own benefit with no regard for the interests of other shareholders.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
