 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Henke v. Trilithic Inc., Civil Action No. 13155,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, October 28, 2005, Decided , October 28, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In Del. Code Ann. tit. 8, § 262 appraisal action, court used discounted cash flow methodology to determine corporation's value and used build-up method to determine discount rate. Rate of growth of sales was determined on product-by-product basis rather than applying one growth rate to all products, and debt deduction was amount actually payable.
|
|||||
| Snyder v. Jehovah's Witnesses, Inc., C.A. No.: 05A-02-001,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, October 28, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of common pleas properly dismissed a landowner's fraudulent misrepresentation action, as it failed to prove any of the four elements thereto. Further, there was no evidence of a unilateral or mutual mistake, no reason to award damages for unjust enrichment, and any future damages were speculative.
|
|||||
| State v. Colon, ID # 0104009021,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, October 28, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because Blakely did not apply to Delaware's voluntary and non-binding sentencing guidelines, because defendant's Blakely argument was untimely, and because the sentence was appropriate, defendant's motion to reduce a five-year sentence for trafficking in cocaine was denied.
|
|||||
| State v. Crawford, CR. A. NOS: IN88-02-1007 R2; IN88-02-1008 R2; IN 88-04-0845 R2, DEF. I.D.: 30800813DI,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, October 28, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: After considering defendant's procedurally-barred post-conviction relief motion alleging a colorable constitutional claim, neither his right to counsel nor due process were violated, as the appointment of counsel for his defense was discretionary, and preservation of the challenged evidence, which was not introduced at trial, was not required.
|
|||||
| State v. Ismaaeel, Def. ID # 0304002130,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, October 28, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's only postconviction claims not procedurally barred under Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 61(i) were those relating to counsel's claimed ineffectiveness, but counsel was not ineffective in failing to move for suppression where probation officers' initial questioning and seizure of defendant had been proper.
|
|||||
| Thompson v. State, No. 22, 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, October 28, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although the prosecutor erred in telling the jury to not go into deliberations to seek reasonable doubt, but "to seek the truth," said error was harmless as the trial court eliminated any prejudicial impact to defendant's right to a fair trial by issuing a curative instruction to the jury. Also, the remark was not repetitive.
|
|||||
| Word v. Johnson, C.A. No. 1004-N,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, October 28, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Buyer was granted summary judgment in part, satisfying the first prong necessary to show his entitlement to specific performance of a sales agreement, requiring the seller to appear for closing, where the seller was to convey title to the buyer in exchange for the buyer's satisfaction of the existing mortgage and discharge of the underlying note.
|
|||||
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. |
