|
|
| |
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 29, 2005
|
| |
Bease v. State, No. 105, 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, September 29, 2005, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: Probable cause to test defendant by an intoxilyzer under Del. Code Ann. tit. 21, ? 2740(a) existed because he spoke rapidly, smelled of alcohol, admitted to drinking alcoholic beverages the night before, had bloodshot and glassy eyes, and had just committed a traffic violation; thus, his motion to suppress the test results was properly denied.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Figuly v. Shahan, C.A. No. 05M-05-041-FSS,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, September 29, 2005, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: Although an individual refused to take a blood alcohol test, the State agreed that his alcohol concentration was below the limit; therefore, because he met all the statutory conditions, the individual was entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the DMV to issue a conditional license pursuant to Del. Code Ann. tit. 21, ? 4177C(b).
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Shook & Fletcher Asbestos Settlement Trust v. Safety Nat'l Cas. Corp., C.A. No. 04C-02-087 MMJ,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, September 29, 2005, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: Under significant relationships test for choice of law on excess liability policy, Alabama controlled as that was insured's company headquarters; Alabama adopted exposure trigger, so that trigger controlled coverage; limits of insured's other policies, not lower settlement amount reached with other insurers, was amount to calculate excess coverage.
|
|
| |
State v. Fuller, ID # 0305001419 & ID # 9609017656,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, September 29, 2005, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: Given the facts behind defendant's drug possession cases, his unsuitability for probation and lesser sanctions, and his violent and drug-related criminal history, the sentences imposed against him for his misdemeanor drug convictions and violation of probation, which, although not the maximum, exceeded the sentencing guidelines, were warranted.
|
|
| |
Williams v. State, No. 54, 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, September 29, 2005, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: Because the apparent lack of an arraignment was in no way prejudicial, because the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, and because defendant's claim of an illegal sentence lacked merit, pursuant to Del. Sup. Ct. R. 26(c), the judgment was affirmed and his attorney's motion to withdraw was moot.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback