 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bromstad-Deturk v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., C.A. No.: 08C-02-118 RRC,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, August 25, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insured's action to recover additional UIM benefits after her insurer had paid $100,000 in UIM benefits based on the policy covering the vehicle involved in an accident was dismissed as Del. Code Ann. tit. 18, ¿ 3902(c) clearly precluded stacking of UIM coverage when two or more vehicles in the same household were insured by the same insurer.
|
|||||
| Gately v. Carey, C.A. No. 08-02-0048AP,
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DELAWARE, KENT, August 25, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was entered for a landlord against tenants for breach of a lease because the court found that the landlord had proven that the tenants had caused damage to the rented premises in the amount of $ 3,173. The damages total was reduced by a $ 750 security deposit which the tenants had paid at the beginning of the lease.
|
|||||
| In re Defendant Id No. 0803026712, No. 0803026712(R-1),
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, August 25, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion for postconviction relief under Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 61 was denied where his allegations that he believed his attorney was under the influence of drugs which would have hindered counsel's ability to defend him were conclusory and the court found that the guilty plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered.
|
|||||
| State v. Chambers, I.D. # 0311009491A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, August 25, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's motion for postconviction relief was summarily denied because the inmate's motion was completely conclusory, and the inmate failed to support his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel with concrete allegations of actual prejudice as required by Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 61(b)(2).
|
|||||
| State v. Patrick, I.D. # 0504024696,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, August 25, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate was procedurally barred by Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 61(i)(3) from bringing claims he made in his postconviction relief motion because he failed to assert them on his direct appeal and did not show that any exception to the procedural bar applied. Inmate also failed to support his claims with concrete allegations of actual prejudice.
|
|||||
| State v. Trump, I.D. # 9703005786,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, August 25, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While third motion for postconviction relief was procedurally barred under Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 61(i)(1), defendant also failed to show that exception in Rule 61(i)(5) applied as trial counsel was not ineffective for not investigating defendant's mental health issues as trial counsel stated that he did not detect any mental deficiencies.
|
|||||
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. |
