 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Cannon v. State, No. 24, 2004,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, June 29, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State's petition for forfeiture of an owner's property was properly granted where owner's affidavit reflected that he had sufficient assets to pay filing fee but did not pay it and State gave the owner proper notice of its intent to seek forfeiture.
|
|||||
| Deputy v. Roy, No. 107, 2004,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, June 29, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although an inmate claimed that the notice of appeal he filed with the state supreme court was untimely because prison employees misdirected his correspondence, that explanation was not sufficient to warrant enlargement of time he had to file notice.
|
|||||
| Flax v. State, No. 450, 2003,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, June 29, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A state employee was not entitled to additional compensation after exhausting the state's PIP benefits following a car accident, where Delaware Industrial Accident Board determined the employee was not totally disabled from any and all employment.
|
|||||
| Grimes v. State, No. 606, 2003,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, June 29, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although State improperly failed to reveal that it had a videotape showing defendant in a store, it did not gain an unfair advantage by withholding that information, and trial court did not commit plain error when it allowed jury to watch the tape.
|
|||||
| In re Silver Leaf, L.L.C., C.A. No. 20611,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, June 29, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A corporate stockholder was judicially estopped from arguing that a Delaware court lacked personal jurisdiction over him, as he had obtained dismissal of a New Jersey action on the premise that the full dispute could be litigated in Delaware.
|
|||||
| Izquierdo v. Sills, C.A. No. 15505-NC,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, June 29, 2004, Date Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Individual police and city officials who were not parties to a collective bargaining agreement between a city and a police officer could not be held liable for breach of that agreement.
|
|||||
| Kuhn v. Selvocki, No. 569, 2003,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, June 29, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Client's motion to set aside default judgment was properly denied in accountant's suit to recover fees for professional services where client did not assert meritorious defense and did not show that outcome might be different if relief were granted.
|
|||||
| McMillion v. McMillion, No. 285, 2003,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, June 29, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly entered a default judgment granting exclusive possession of marital home to husband and assessing wife for past due mortgage payments, as her counsel was properly notified of the husband's motions leading to the entry of default.
|
|||||
| Proctor v. State, Nos. 383/385, 2003 (Consolidated),
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, June 29, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although Delaware statute provided that a habitual offender sentence was not required for an extradited defendant, statute did not prohibit a court from imposing a habitual offender sentence. Defendant's habeas corpus petition was properly denied.
|
|||||
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. |
