 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| In re Abercrombie & Fitch Co. S'holders Derivative Litig. v. Jeffries, No. 282, 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, October 26, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney-fee award in a derivative shareholder action was upheld as the chancellor considered (1) the reasonableness of the settlement and its affect on the shareholders, (2) the lodestar method to contrast the amount awarded against the amount requested, and (3) the hurdles facing the shareholders in the event of litigation.
|
|||||
| In re Solomon, No. 361, 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, October 26, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Due to a lawyer's repeated unethical conduct and admitted violation of Del. Law. R. Prof. Conduct 1.16(d) by representing a client while she was on probation, her failure to take reasonable steps to protect his interest in withdrawing from said representation, and based on her past disciplinary record, a three-year suspension was ordered.
|
|||||
| Ishimaru v. Fung, C.A. No. 929,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, October 26, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although an LLC's member could proceed on the LLC's behalf in a claim against a corporation, the LLC was equitably estopped from denying the corporation's demand to arbitrate; the LLC fairly was bound to arbitrate claims premised on the notion that the corporation breached an amendment to a joint venture agreement.
|
|||||
| King v. Bardusch Corp., C.A. No. 04A-12-011 SCD,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, October 26, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of a worker's petition for additional compensation was error where her claim was originally settled for 12 percent impairment, but at the hearing, doctors rated her impairment at 28 percent and 17 percent impairment, and the employer conceded that there was evidence to support an increase in her disability benefits.
|
|||||
| Davis Int'l v. New Start Group Corp., C.A. No. 1297-N,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, October 27, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Given the satisfaction of the McWane factors, a motion for a stay of a state court's proceedings was granted due to a prior filed federal case involving the same parties and the same issues and the fact that the U.S. District Court would be able to render prompt and complete justice of the dispute.
|
|||||
| Sheer Beauty, Inc. v. Mediderm Pharms. & Labs., C.A. No. 05C-02-174MMJ,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, October 27, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although the court had specific personal jurisdiction over a pharmaceutical company pursuant to Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, ¿ 3104(c)(2), the mere shipment of goods into Delaware, without additional contact with Delaware, was not adequate evidence of the minimum contacts required by the Due Process Clause.
|
|||||
| Shook & Fletcher Asbestos Settlement Trust v. Safety Nat'l Cas. Corp., C.A. No. 04C-02-087 MMJ,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, October 27, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Asbestos settlement trust sued insurer; court ruled Delaware and Alabama laws conflicted as to proper insurance coverage trigger, and that under most significant relationship test, Alabama's exposure coverage trigger applied. Court certified interlocutory appeal under Del. Sup. Ct. R. 42, as ruling could help resolve issues and lead to settlement.
|
|||||
| Sinex v. Bishop, C.A. No. 04C-12-256 MMJ,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, October 27, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Third-party complaints by customers who were not privy to the purchase and commissions agreements between buyers and sellers were dismissed, supporting denial of consolidation. Also, an absolute privilege barred claims against a second attorney, and dismissal of a malpractice claim against a first was denied but granted as to a criminal claim.
|
|||||
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. |
