 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Brathwaite v. State, No. 169, 2003,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, July 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of defendant's motions for new trial based on newly discovered evidence and ineffective assistance of counsel grounds was proper; he failed to show he met requirements for receiving new trial based on newly discovered evidence and trial court applied proper Del. Const. art. I, § 7 standard governing ineffective assistance of counsel claims.
|
|||||
| Carr v. State, No. 160, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, July 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant's sentences for first-degree kidnapping, first-degree conspiracy, first-degree rape, and attempted first-degree rape were within the guidelines in effect at the time he was sentenced, the sentences were not illegal, and defendant was not entitled to relief under Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 35(a).
|
|||||
| Cox v. State, No. 155, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, July 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant's 1981 convictions were all prior violent felonies, regardless of their age, and because defendant's motion for modification was untimely and repetitive, the superior court properly denied his Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 35(b) motion for modification of sentence.
|
|||||
| Dover Historical Soc'y, Inc. v. City of Dover Planning Comm'n, Nos. 111 and 112, 2006 (Consolidated),
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, July 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellants seeking to preserve historic buildings were due attorneys' fees under exception to American Rule; while litigation progressed, employee of company seeking to build non-conforming building, destroyed three historic buildings. Such act was abusive, disrespectful of judicial process, and constituted bad faith, warranting fee-shifting award.
|
|||||
| Eaves v. State, No. 22, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, July 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An inmate's petition under Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 61 for postconviction relief was properly denied; he filed it 19 days after the limitation period in Rule 61 expired, and he did not claim a new, retroactively applied right, a miscarriage of justice due to a constitutional violation, or that the sentencing court had no jurisdiction.
|
|||||
| Gibbs v. State, No. 555, 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, July 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant did not raise any issues for consideration, and because counsel made a conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and properly determined that defendant could not raise a meritorious claim on appeal, pursuant to Del. Sup. Ct. R. 26(c), defendant's appeal lacked merit, and was devoid of any arguably appealable issue.
|
|||||
| Jenkins v. State, No. 410, 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, July 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant never requested to renew a motion to suppress in a violation of probation (VOP) revocation proceeding, defendant waived renewing the motion in the VOP hearing and confirmed the VOP waiver when the motion to suppress was renewed in the new criminal proceedings.
|
|||||
| Kostyshyn v. State, No. 527, 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, July 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Magee v. Higgins, No. 252, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, July 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant, who lived with a minor child's paternal grandmother, did not have standing to pursue an appeal of a family court order regarding visitation issues involving the child because, although he might be an "interested person" under Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, § 1052(b), he was not a party to the family court proceedings.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
