 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| AT&T Corp. v. Clarendon Am. Ins. Co., No. 567, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, July 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Directors of insured corporation suffered covered "Loss," and shareholder was entitled to enforce directors' contract claims against Director and Officer insurance carriers, as shareholder had assistance in paying defense costs, settlements and judgments in underlying litigation. Further, shareholder was equitably subrogated to claims of directors.
|
|||||
| Andrews v. State, No. 408, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, July 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was properly convicted of a delinquency count of making terroristic threats against his high school teacher under Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 621(a)(1); the "true threat" exception to First Amendment speech protection applied because defendant intended to intimidate the teacher, regardless of whether he intended to carry out the threat.
|
|||||
| Jones v. State, No. 141, 2007,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, July 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Despite discrepancies between an affidavit of probable cause and the underlying police reports, defendant failed to show that the affiant intentionally or recklessly gave false statements or that the statements were necessary to find probable cause; thus, his Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 61 motion for postconviction relief was properly denied.
|
|||||
| McKinney Family L.P. v. Stubbs, No. 510, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, July 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was no abuse of discretion by a court of chancery in ordering specific performance of a contract for the sale of land because the contract was definite and clear enough to be specifically enforced, there was no parol evidence violation, and the parties clearly intended for a map attached to the contract to set the property boundaries.
|
|||||
| Milton v. State, No. 46, 2007,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, July 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant offered no evidence in support of his mental competency claim, and did not provide any evidence that a Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 4333(f) claim was raised at the violation of probation hearing, the trial court was authorized to impose the suspended sentence or any lesser sentence authorized by § 4333(f).
|
|||||
| Ortiz v. State, No. 645, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, July 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant's Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 35 motion for modification of sentence sought to compel the DOC to apply good time credits to his violation of probation sentence instead of challenging the legality of his sentence, the trial court properly denied the motion.
|
|||||
| Sutherland v. Sutherland, C.A. No. 2399-VCL,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, July 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In derivative action, court permitted plaintiff shareholder following categories of discovery which directly related to diligence and independence of board member who was entire special litigation committee, including production of same documents board member and his counsel or advisors reviewed during his investigation.
|
|||||
| Wright v. Moore, No. 392, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, July 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where no confusion existed and defendant driver used information about plaintiff's settlement with another driver for an improper purpose, a new trial was required. The trial court also erred when it refused to give a negligence per se instruction about the driver's acceptance of a ticket for inattentive driving under Del. Code tit. 21, § 4176(b).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
