 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Davis v. State, No. 478, 2004,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, September 19, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court was not required under Delaware's lesser-included offense statute, Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, ¿ 206(c), to instruct the jury with respect to a lesser-included offense, where there was no rational basis in the evidence for a verdict acquitting defendant of the offense charged and convicting him of the included offense instead.
|
|||||
| Eberl v. Jackson, C.A. No. 02C-06-243-CLS,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, September 19, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Company was granted summary judgment on a negligent entrustment claim regarding a vehicle that was involved in an accident, injuring a third party; the company had no obligation to investigate an independent contractor's employee's records because the independent contractor was not the company's agent.
|
|||||
| Glenn v. State, No. 204, 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, September 19, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Jones v. State, No. 120, 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, September 19, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's appeal of an adjudication finding him guilty of his third probation violation was affirmed; defendant's appeal was wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable issue.
|
|||||
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. |
