 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Anderson v. State, No. 353, 1999,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, May 8, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of defendant's second motion for postconviction relief was affirmed because it was time-barred and procedurally barred as repetitive, because he had failed to raise his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in his first motion.
|
|||||
| Cantor v. Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P., No. 162, 2000,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, May 8, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since the decision of the chancery court, that defendants had breached a contractually-imposed fiduciary duty of loyalty, was interlocutory, defendant's appeal had to be dismissed.
|
|||||
| Delaware State Univ. v. Delaware State Univ. Chapter of the Am. Ass'n of Univ. Professors, Civil Action No. 1389-K,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, May 9, 2000, Decided; May 16, 2000, Corrected
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The public employee relations board erred by failing to apply the standard under which deference to contractual dispute resolution provisions was appropriate even when such provisions addressed statutorily protected rights.
|
|||||
| Schmalhofer v. Board of Adjustment of Newark, C.A. No. 99A-05-010-WTQ,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, May 9, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A verbatim transcript of a municipal agency decision denying a variance for home improvement was sufficient for written requirement. Appellant needed proof of exceptional practical difficulties because additions exceeded the size limit.
|
|||||
| USH Ventures v. Global Telesystems Group, Inc., C.A. No. 97C-08-086-WTQ,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, May 9, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court found that any breach by defendants would not have resulted in damages, as plaintiffs failed to offer expert testimony to prove that they could have obtained the financing necessary to fulfill the contract's terms.
|
|||||
| Anonymous v. State, Civil Action No. 17453,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, May 10, 2000, Decided; June 1, 2000, Corrected
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court was required to dismiss plaintiff's claim for lack of a justiciable controversy, where the plaintiff failed to establish that there was any threat of prosecution.
|
|||||
| Brown v. Houston Ventures, C.A. No. 2046-S,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, KENT, May 10, 2000, Submitted , May 10, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiffs could not get preliminary mandatory injunctive relief to have a fence removed because questions of fact remained concerning their right to use the property in question.
|
|||||
| Crawley v. State, No. 478, 1999,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, May 10, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Sears Roebuck & Co. v. Marcozzi, Civil Action No. 1999-06-045,
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, May 10, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Customer was responsible for daughter's use of credit card where she was given power of attorney, court found he was aware of use of card, and customer's testimony at trial was not credible because it was inconsistent with deposition testimony.
|
|||||
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. |
