Delaware, September, 2005, State Case law

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!

State Courts - Delaware - September 28, 2005

Dweck v. Nasser, C.A. No. 1353-N, COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, September 28, 2005, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: In breach of contract and fiduciary duty case, minority shareholder's motion under Del. Ch. Ct. R. 65(b) for temporary restraining order against majority shareholder and corporation was denied. An imminent threat of harm was not shown as there were no facts to suggest that corporation and majority shareholder were likely to dissipate assets.

Search Cases for Free

Hammons v. State, No. 458, 2004, SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, September 28, 2005, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Defendant was properly denied postconviction relief, as his guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered, free from any alleged coercion from counsel; thus, his claim that he was factually innocent lacked merit. Further, he was entitled to receive good time credit on both his pre-Truth-in-Sentencing (TIS) sentence and his TIS sentence.

Search Cases for Free

Hemrick v. Meconi, C.A. No. 05A-02-002 WLW, SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, KENT, September 28, 2005, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Father's intra-agency appeal of denial of benefits for son was not due process required "fair hearing" as he did not get "effective" opportunity to confront witnesses and present his own arguments and evidence orally. Father's calling witnesses and presenting arguments was "ineffectual" as HO's decision was based lack of agency jurisdiction.

Search Cases for Free

State v. Kinard, Case No. 0503005535, SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, September 28, 2005, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Because the exclusion of evidence establishing a probation violation would hamper the State's ability to ensure compliance with the expressed conditions of probation by permitting a probationer to avoid the consequences of his noncompliance, the exclusionary rule did not apply to probation revocation hearings.

Search Cases for Free

Communities Portal