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