 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Grabowski v. Mangler, No. 65, 2007,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, July 9, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Co-employees were not entitled to summary judgment on negligence claim because trial court, after determining that workers' compensation was employee's exclusive remedy under Del. Code Ann. tit. 19, § 2304, failed to analyze, under "Larson" test, whether his co-employees' conduct was horseplay that was outside the course and scope of employment.
|
|||||
| Hyatt v. Toys "R" Us, Inc., No. 327, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, July 9, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: By analyzing the evidence presented from the perspective of the condition of a bicycle at the time of sale, rather than the manner in which it came to be in that condition, a jury could have found that the bike was not "merchantable," and the seller was not entitled to judgment notwithstanding the jury's verdict in favor of the buyer.
|
|||||
| Brooks v. State, No. 586, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, July 10, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a co-defendant's testimony supported a conspiracy charge, the jury was properly instructed on a newspaper article, and the mitigating factors in defendant's history warranted nothing more than a minimum mandatory sentence, defendant's Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 61 postconviction motion was properly denied since counsel was not ineffective.
|
|||||
| McNair v. Taylor, C.A. No. 06C-08-031 JTV,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, KENT, July 10, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a former inmate's suit for medical negligence and constitutional violations, defendants were not entitled to have any allegations stricken based on a statute of limitations issue under Del. Code Ann. tit. 18, § 6856, because appropriate pleading in which to raise that issue was the answer, as an affirmative defense, and not a motion to dismiss.
|
|||||
| State v. Robinson, Cr. ID No. 0503002950,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, July 10, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 45(b)(2) expressly provided that the court could not extend the time for taking any action under Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 61(i)(1), the court did not have the authority to grant defendant's request to increase the one year time-limit for filing a Rule 61 motion for postconviction relief.
|
|||||
| Merrill Lynch Trust Co., FSB v. Campbell, C.A. No. 1803-VCN,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, KENT, July 11, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A settlor-beneficiary's counterclaim against a trustee, alleging that it engaged in fraud and negligent misrepresentation in inducing her to enter into the trust and to name it as the trustee, was timed-barred under Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, § 8106, as no tolling provisions applied where the misrepresentations were not previously unknowable.
|
|||||
| Rhodes v. Silkroad Equity, LLC, C.A. No. 2133-VCN,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, July 11, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Former shareholders of a software development firm stated claims for breach of fiduciary duties by an investment equity (IE) and others that allegedly engaged in conduct that resulted in the complete ownership of the firm by the IE; however, claims of breach of contract and slander per se did not survive a dismissal motion.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
