Delaware, November, 2005, State Case law

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!

State Courts - Delaware - November 9 - November 10, 2005

Davis v. Martin, No. 119, 2005, SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, November 9, 2005, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: The mother was not entitled to reopening of the stipulated judgment regarding custody and visitation. The mother did not address any of the required factors for reopening a judgment under Del. Fam. Ct. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The record showed that the mother agreed to the terms of the custody and visitation order.

Search Cases for Free

In re Perkins, No. 419, 2005, SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, November 9, 2005, Decided
View this case - free

Search Cases for Free

In re Perkins, No. 419, 2005, SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, November 9, 2005, Decided; December 28, 2005, Revised
View this case - free

Search Cases for Free

In re Wilson, No. 477, 2005, Board Case Nos. 1 and 2, 2005, SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, November 9, 2005, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: An attorney, who admitted that he had acted with a lack of diligence in handling two estates and who had already received a private admonition with regard to one estate, had violated Del. Law. R. Prof. Conduct 1.3, 1.15(b), 3.4(c), 8.1(b) and 8.4(d). He was publicly reprimanded and ordered not to serve as or represent a personal representative.

Search Cases for Free

Moore v. State, No. 517, 2004, SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, November 9, 2005, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Although the trial court sought to protect a victim, because it reviewed a presentence report that included graphic statements of abuse made by the victim that were not provided to defendant under Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 32, defendant was entitled to an opportunity to address the victim's statements at a new sentencing hearing.

Search Cases for Free

State v. Davis, Nos. 0505010323 (R-1), SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, November 9, 2005, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: The inmate, who sought postconviction relief from a guilty plea, could not complain that the only reason he entered the plea was because he thought he was only going to be in the program for six months as the trial court told the inmate at the time of the pleas were entered that he was subject to seven years of incarceration.

Search Cases for Free

State v. Perkins, I.D. No. 0212008942, SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, November 9, 2005, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Defendant's motion for an acquittal and/or a new trial was denied as Del. Code Ann. tit. 29, ? 4707 did not apply to the medical examiner's testimony, defendant chose not to have the jury instructed on any lesser included offenses, and he was not prejudiced by a challenged statement in the prosecutor's closing argument.

Search Cases for Free

Blanchfield v. State, No. 342, 2005, SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, November 10, 2005, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Defendant's motion for correction of a sentence under Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 35(a) was properly denied where he only challenged the proceedings prior to sentencing; since he pled guilty, the State did not have to prove intent, so the appeal was factually baseless, and summary affirmance under Del. Sup. Ct. R. 25(a) was granted.

Search Cases for Free

Jackson v. State, No. 239, 2005, SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, November 10, 2005, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Because the claims in defendant's second motion for postconviction relief were procedurally barred from consideration by Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 61(i)(3), (i)(4) as formerly adjudicated, the trial court did not have to issue a supporting memorandum of law; consequently, pursuant to Del. Sup. Ct. R. 25(a), the appeal lacked merit.

Search Cases for Free

Thomas v. State, No. 560, 2004, SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, November 10, 2005, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Because cocaine was found on the front floorboard of a vehicle after defendant fled, the circumstances showed that he knew the vehicle was being kept or maintained for illegal drug activity in violation of Del. Code Ann. tit. 16, ? 4755; the trial court's instructions on direct and constructive possession were correct statements of law.

Search Cases for Free

Communities Portal