 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Burris v. Penn Mart Supermarkets, Inc., C.A. No. 04C-11-004 MMJ,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, July 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Store's motion for summary judgment was denied as customer's testimony that after fall, he was wet, and that substance was wet and slick created fact issue. There were also fact issues as to reasonableness of store's inspection procedure and whether, if inspection procedure was followed, any dangerous substance could have been found.
|
|||||
| Casarotto v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, C.A. No. 03C-06-018 JTV,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, KENT, July 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As plaintiff's defenses to defendant's motion for costs would fail even if plaintiff were allowed to file a reply to the motion, plaintiff's motion for relief under Del. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 60(b), based on the ground that his counsel had never received the motion for costs, was deemed moot.
|
|||||
| In re Jones, Civil Miscellaneous No. 10320,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, July 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Chancery court ruled in favor of the guardians on a bank's exceptions to a final accounting in a guardianship regarding the transfer of the ward's car because the transfer of the ward's car to a guardian was harmless error. The court also found that further proceedings were required regarding a guardian's interest in a jointly titled account.
|
|||||
| Kurzmann v. State, No. 381, 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, July 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alleged prosecutorial misconduct did not require reversal where defendant failed to rebut presumption violation of probation judge made a decision only upon admissible evidence. Probation was properly revoked even though State never charged defendant with new offense; State only needed to present some competent evidence to prove violation asserted.
|
|||||
| State v. Bartholomew, ID No. 0509027632,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, KENT, July 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant, who was charged with sexual offenses, was allowed an in camera hearing to take the testimony of complaining witnesses under Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, ¿ 3508(a)(3), as he desired this evidence for credibility purposes. Defendant was also allowed to inspect child protective records relating to certain descriptions given by the complainants.
|
|||||
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. |
