 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Allen v. Reddish, C.A. No.: 05C-02-121MJB,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, June 20, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff failed to properly serve process on a driver because Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, § 3104(d), required that notice be sent by registered mail, and notice in this case was sent by certified mail, which was insufficient, even though certified mail was a reliable method to ensure service of process had been made on out-of-state defendants.
|
|||||
| Krahmer v. Christie's, Inc., No. 301, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, June 20, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellants' interlocutory appeal of a ruling denying their motion to amend a petition for rescission filed against a corporation was refused; according to the criteria set forth in Del. Sup. Ct. R. 42, exceptional circumstances meriting interlocutory review of the decision of the trial court did not exist.
|
|||||
| Lauria v. M.A.C., C.A. No. 05A-08-008 MJB,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, June 20, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A claimant had no right to benefits under worker's compensation statute, Del. Code Ann. tit. 19, § 2304; attack by assailants while she sought dinner was a personal one and was due to her confrontation with them, it was not neutral attack, and it did not result from employer's policies. Del. Code Ann. tit. 19, § 2301(18)(b), thus excluded coverage.
|
|||||
| State v. Fullerton, ID No. 0410000810,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, June 20, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant dropped six spent casings in front of the police and was sitting on top of a gun that he was prohibited from possessing, there was sufficient evidence to find him guilty of the possession of a deadly weapon by a person prohibited; defendant was not entitled to a judgment of acquittal or a new trial in the interests of justice.
|
|||||
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. |
