 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Phillips v. Delhaize Am., Inc., C.A. No. 06A-09-001,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, July 20, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As the Delaware Industrial Accident Board failed to notify parties about the issues it intended to address at a legal hearing regarding the termination of an employee's total disability benefits, the notice requirements under Del. Code Ann. tit. 19, § 2301A(d) and Del. Code Ann. tit. 29, § 10161 and due process requirements were not satisfied.
|
|||||
| Ponder v. State, C.A. No. 06M-12-019,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, July 20, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's petition under Del. Code Ann. tit. 16, § 4784(j) and Del. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 71.3 for the return of a vehicle seized after he was arrested was dismissed where notice of forfeiture was properly provided by the State to defendant, defendant failed to file the petition in a timely manner, and the petition was not verified.
|
|||||
| Weatherspoon v. State, No. 94, 2007,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, July 20, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant's prior postconviction motion had been considered and denied on the merits, the trial court did not err in determining that defendant's second motion for postconviction relief was procedurally barred as untimely, repetitive, and defaulted under Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(1), (2), (3).
|
|||||
| Wiseman v. State, No. 15, 2007,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, July 20, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because nothing in the record suggested that the trial court credited defendant for time served in a manner other than what was prescribed by Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 3901, and because defendant did not demonstrate prejudice as a result thereof, the trial court properly denied his motion for modification of sentence.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
