 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| AIG Ret. Servs. v. Barbizet, C.A. No. 974-N,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, July 11, 2006, Decided , July 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In minority shareholder's action alleging that directors failed to file suit on behalf of parent company, demand to initiate suit was excused under Del. Ch. Ct. R. 23.1. Directors received benefits from their relationship with businessman, who allegedly had interests adverse to parent company, which allegedly caused them to vote against suit.
|
|||||
| Ayers v. Pave It, LLC, Civil Action No. 01812-S,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, July 11, 2006, Decided , July 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Limited liability company did not extinguish estate's easement through adverse possession under Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, §§ 7901-7904 as tankers did not effectively block entire right-of-way and tankers did not block easement for statutory period since they were parked after trees had begun growing, which was no more than 17 years ago.
|
|||||
| Falconi v. Coombs & Coombs, Inc., No. 387, 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, July 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the totality of the factors showed that the worker's relationship with the employer was that of an employee rather than an independent contractor, the Industrial Action Board erred when it decided that the worker failed to prove he was an employee eligible for workers' compensation benefits.
|
|||||
| Hawkins v. State, No. 257, 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, July 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in allowing the admission pursuant to Del. R. Evid. 404(b) of alleged prior misconduct evidence in the State's case-in-chief, as defendant's motive for attacking his wife and eight-year-old stepdaughter was not in dispute, but the error in admitting that evidence was harmless given the other evidence in the case against him.
|
|||||
| Richardson Park United Methodist Church v. State Fire Prevention Comm'n, C.A. No. 05A-11-003 RRC,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, July 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the Delaware State Fire Prevention Commission made no finding that granting a church a variance from a fire prevention regulation would create a substantial detriment to public safety, its decision denying the church's application for a variance under Del. Code Ann. tit. 16, § 6609 had to be reversed.
|
|||||
| Daystar Constr. Mgmt. v. Mitchell, C.A. No. 04C-05-175-JRS,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, July 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The guarantor's defense alleging violation of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing failed. The assignee's motive in pursuing the guarantor for the debt was irrelevant because there was no allegation that the assignee had breached the terms of the guaranty or any of the other operative agreements in the case.
|
|||||
| Gray v. State, No. 55, 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, July 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction and sentence and the denial of defendant's motion to modify defendant's sentence under Del. Sup. Ct. R. 35(b) were affirmed because the superior court did not impose a sentence in excess of the statutory maximum and there was no showing that the superior court acted outside of its discretion.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
