 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Leonard v. Leonard, No. 49, 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, October 18, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Father wanted full child custody based on mother's domestic violence, mental health, and causing his paramour's arrest. Lower court properly considered childrens' best interests under Del. Code Ann. tit. 13, § 722(a), so it did not abuse its discretion by awarding joint legal custody, residential custody to mother, and visitation to father.
|
|||||
| Miller v. State, No. 287, 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, October 18, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Superior court correctly dismissed defendant's motion for postconviction relief because the record reflected that his conviction became final in October 1997; thus his motion, filed in January 2005, was filed after the three-year period prescribed by Del. Ct. R. Crim. P. 61. Moreover, defendant presented no evidence of a miscarriage of justice.
|
|||||
| Miller v. State, No. 192, 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, October 18, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court found no error or abuse of discretion in the superior court's dismissal of defendant's motion for postconviction relief on the basis of untimeliness. Record showed that defendant's conviction became final in September 1983 and that his motion, filed in April 2005, was filed beyond three-year period prescribed by Del. Sup. Ct. R. Crim. P. 61.
|
|||||
| Showell v. State, No. 497, 2004,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, October 18, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: On review of defendant's conviction for health care fraud, and defendant's claim that court admitted purely speculative testimony, court found no error. Witness had testified that defendant's transportation reimbursement billings were suspect because they billed for two escorts when only one was permitted where siblings were taken to same provider.
|
|||||
| State v. Mitchell, ID No: 0503018691,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, KENT, October 18, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion for transfer under Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, § 1011(b), for trial as juvenile was denied where State showed fair likelihood of being able to convict, multiple robbery offenses were egregious, defendant's criminal history was replete with similar crimes, and society's interest would best be served by treating defendant as an adult.
|
|||||
| State v. Perkins, ID No: 0407018106,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, KENT, October 18, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion pursuant to Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 48(b) to dismiss his prosecution for unnecessary delay was denied, because only one short delay was attributed to the State, and was based on unavailability of the victim, and defendant failed to show that he suffered any delay from the delays.
|
|||||
| Whiteman v. State, No. 353, 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, October 18, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Williams v. State, No. 264,2005,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, October 18, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Young v. State, No. 289, 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, October 18, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While inmate claimed he was convicted because counsel prevented him from testifying at trial, he did not state what his testimony would have been or how it would have changed the outcome of the case, which was essential to his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; in absence of such showing, there was no error or abuse of discretion.
|
|||||
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. |
