 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bestfield Homes, LLC v. Sussex County Bd. of Adjustment, C.A. No. 07A-06-005 ESB,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, July 22, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although a builder was unable to file its appeal within the time limits of 9 Del. C. § 6918(a) because a county board of adjustment's denial was sent to the wrong address, because the builder supplied the address to the board, its Del. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 59(3) motion for reargument was denied.
|
|||||
| Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Cason, C.A. No. 98-10-0093,
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DELAWARE, KENT, July 22, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a default judgment entered against a debtor was a valid judgment when entered, and only became void when it was later discharged by the debtor's bankruptcy, there was no legal basis for the default judgment to be vacated under either the Bankruptcy Law or Del. C.P. Ct. Civ. R. 60(b)(4).
|
|||||
| Morla v. State, No. 522, 2007,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, July 22, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because there was no evidence that the trial court abused its discretion in determining that an evidentiary hearing was unnecessary and that defendant's response to his attorney's statement presented no further issues requiring an evidentiary hearing, the trial court did not err in denying defendant's Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 61(g)(3) motion.
|
|||||
| Rodney Square Bldg. Restorations, Inc. v. Noel, C.A. No. 07A-07-007 PLA,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, July 22, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence did not support finding by Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that employer failed to show good cause for untimely response to a separation notice under Del. Code Ann. tit. 19, § 3317(b) as a finding that the employer did not act on the notice for four days was based on a factual inaccuracy as to when the notice was received.
|
|||||
| Shah v. Universal Del., Inc., No. 123, 2008,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, July 22, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In the absence of any explanation as to why an employee failed to file a written demand for a trial de novo in accordance with Del. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 16.1(k)(11)(D), the trial court committed no legal error in entering the arbitrator's order as a judgment of the court.
|
|||||
| Sprint Nextel Corp. v. iPCS, Inc., Civil Action No. 3746-VCP,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, July 22, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Corporations' application under Del. Sup. Ct. R. 42 for certification of an interlocutory appeal from an opinion and order denying their motion to stay an action pending a parallel suit was denied because they failed to shown that the opinion and order determined a substantial issue or established a legal right sufficient to justify certification.
|
|||||
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. |
