 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Abraham v. Emerson Radio Corp., C.A. No. 1845-N,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, July 5, 2006, Decided , July 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Controlling stockholder and chief executive officer's motion to dismiss was granted as complaint seeking to equitably re-distribute stockholder's premium received from sale of subsidiary failed to state claim since controlling stockholder could sell its stock for premium not shared with other stockholders except in very narrow circumstances.
|
|||||
| Giulianelli v. Zogby, Civil Action No. 05C-05-023 THG,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, July 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff could not recover costs for a doctor's video deposition taken prior to an offer of judgment made by defendant because, although Del. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 68 did not trump Del. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 54(d), 10 Del. C. § 5102 did not allow recovery of costs as defendant resided in New Castle County and the suit was filed in Sussex County.
|
|||||
| Estate of Watts v. Blue Hen Insulation, No. 430, 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, July 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because Del. Code Ann. tit. 19, § 2332 provided that an injured worker's estate was entitled to permanent injury benefits upon his death, and because the surviving spouse was entitled to 400 weeks of death benefits, even if she did not survive that long, their estates could pursue their right to the benefits under Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, § 3707.
|
|||||
| Goodlett v. State, No. 121, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, July 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although defendant's burglary sentence contained no post-imprisonment supervision, his other sentences fulfilled the intent of the six-month transition period mandated by Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 4204(1); because there was no basis for relief pursuant to Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(a), defendant's Del. Sup. Ct. R. 26(c) appeal lacked merit.
|
|||||
| Highland Select Equity Fund, L.P. v. Motient Corp., C.A. No. 2092-N,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, July 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A chancery court denied a substantial stockholder's demand for access to corporate books and records pursuant to Del. Code Ann. tit. 8, § 220 where the request was overly broad and the stated purposes of investigating suspected mismanagement and engaging in a proxy contest were not supported by the evidence.
|
|||||
| McClements v. Smyrna Sch. Dist., No. 228, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, July 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Owens v. State, ID #: 0407026223,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, July 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant refused to return a victim's money, he acted with criminal intent, and because defendant signed a waiver of trial by jury form on the day of trial, the State proved defendant's criminal intent and he was not denied a trial by jury.
|
|||||
| Ross v. State, No. 589, 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, July 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant did not appeal the dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus, any alleged error by the Department of Correction in implementing a superior court's order was not reviewable by the state supreme court on appeal from the superior court's sentencing order; thus, pursuant to Del. Sup. Ct. R. 26(c), defendant's appeal lacked merit.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
