 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bennett v. Bennett, No. 73, 2007,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, August 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the Family Court had authority under Del. Code Ann. tit. 13, § 1513(f) to enter any order necessary to effectuate its judgment regarding a marital property distribution after the husband's bankruptcy case was dismissed, and because the husband never appealed the Family Court order, he was properly evicted from the marital property.
|
|||||
| In re Hurley, No. 268, 2007,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, August 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a judge was not proceeding in a specific case in which she was clearly disqualified, and because the attorney's clients had an adequate and complete remedy by way of an appeal to correct the judge's erroneous acts, the attorney's petition for a writ of prohibition and/or for a stay under Del. Sup. Ct. R. 32(a) were not ripe for review.
|
|||||
| In re Motion for Recusal of Brady, No. 255, 2007,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, August 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Until a motion for recusal under Del. Judges' Code Jud. Conduct Canon 3(C)(1) was decided in a specific case adjudicated before the judge, the matter was simply not ripe for review; it was similarly premature for the judge to have ruled formally on the merits of the motion for recusal.
|
|||||
| Manley v. State, No. 420, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, August 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because, inter alia, a deviation from the sentencing guidelines offered no basis to challenge the legality of a sentence under Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 35(a), the trial court properly denied defendant's motion.
|
|||||
| Nalley v. State, No. 639, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, August 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Police officer was properly permitted to testify to bystander's statement made after seeing defendant flee a speeding car because statement constituted excited utterance under Del. R. Evid. 803(2). Trial judge did not violate defendant's Sixth Amendment confrontation right because statement was nontestimonial and an constituted excited utterance.
|
|||||
| Roberts v. Delmarva Power & Light Co., CONSOLIDATED CASE C.A. No: 05C-09-015(RBY),
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, KENT, August 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to dismiss pursuant to Del. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 9(b) was denied because negligence complaint alleged that a breach of duty occurred when airport defendants did not bury power lines, fix warning lights on electrical poles or close a runway at night until warning lights were fixed, which was specific enough to put moving defendant on notice.
|
|||||
| Roberts v. Delmarva Power & Light Co., CONSOLIDATED CASE, C.A. No: 05C-09-015 (RBY),
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, KENT, August 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Power company's motion to dismiss was denied as intervenors were not necessary parties under Del. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 19(a) since they were arguably tortfeasors, and it did not need to be determined whether they were indispensable parties under Rule 19(b). The equitable powers available under Rule 19(b) were inaccessible.
|
|||||
| State v. Hawkins, Def. ID # 0411002216A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, August 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was not entitled to postconviction relief under Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 61 because (1) he did not show that trial counsel was ineffective, (2) counsel's failure to subpoena some witnesses did not violate due process, (3) the victims did not contaminate the crime scene, and (4) police did not have to keep the knife he used for testing.
|
|||||
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. |
