 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Augenbaum v. Forman, C.A. No. 1569-N,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, June 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff was awarded $ 225,000 in attorneys' fees and expenses following a settlement of a class action concerning a corporate merger, as the benefit achieved as a result of the litigation, even viewed as plaintiff would view it, was both modest and entirely therapeutic in nature.
|
|||||
| Benge v. Oak Grove Motor Court, Inc., No. 102, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, June 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| City of Dover v. State Fire Prevention Comm'n, C.A. No. 05A-10-004 (JTV),
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, KENT, June 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: City of Dover's charter gave it broad grant of power that included authority to designate volunteer fire company to provide fire protection services within City's limits. Under Del. Code Ann. tit. 16, § 6619, Delaware Fire Prevention Commission could not disregard City's valid exercise of power to designate fire company to protect annexed area.
|
|||||
| Hamm v. State, No. 476, 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, June 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court properly denied defendant's Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 61 motion for postconviction relief, as the record reflected no basis for exclusion of fingerprint evidence used to convict him of burglary and no basis for excluding the testimony of the prosecution's fingerprint expert at trial.
|
|||||
| Houston v. Forbes-Houston, No. 567, 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, June 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Short v. Drewes, C.A. No. 03C-08-026 WCC,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, June 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Allowing jury in claimant's automobile accident civil case to consider alleged tortfeasor's entry of guilty plea to reckless driving, alcohol related, Del. Code Ann. tit. 21, § 4175(a), was not error; reckless conduct which had to be proven under that statute was sufficient to allow jury to consider plea in awarding punitive damages in civil case.
|
|||||
| Smith v. State, No. 263, 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, June 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's appeal was wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable issue. His counsel had made a conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and properly determined that defendant could not raise a meritorious claim in the appeal. Counsel's Del. Sup. Ct. R. 26(c) motion was moot, as the trial court's judgment was affirmed.
|
|||||
| Teachers' Ret. Sys. v. Aidinoff, C.A. No. 20106,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, June 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a claim by the Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana against officers of a holding company and a corporation they controlled, the facts supported a claim for breach of the duty of loyalty against the officers, who reaped millions of dollars from the corporation as a result of its relationship with the holding company.
|
|||||
| Toll Bros. v. Wicks, C.A. No. 1314-N,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, June 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A development company did not have a claim against the DOT for interfering with the company's land application to develop property. New Castle County, Del., Unified Dev. Code § 40.11.150 made clear that the DOT merely offered recommendations and comments to the ultimate decision-maker, i.e., New Castle County.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
