 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Brintzenhoff v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., C.A. No. 04C-03-005 ESB,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, August 11, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insured's attempt to reform insurance policy to obtain increased limit of UIM coverage failed; insurer's application for insurance included a meaningful offer of additional UIM coverage, which the insured failed to accept.
|
|||||
| Ploof v. State, No. 420 & 464, 2003,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, August 11, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A court affirmed defendant's death sentence. Trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying motion for bifurcated penalty hearing. It was required neither by federal or Delaware constitutionally prescribed due process, nor by Delaware statute.
|
|||||
| State v. Hammons, ID No. 98090 19760, Cr. A. No. IN98-10-0243R1, IN98-10-0251R1, IN98-12-1139R1,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE COUNTY, August 11, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Claims that defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel were meritless, as decisions were legitimate trial strategy, and claims were unsupported by facts or based on irrelevant arguments; postconviction relief motion was denied.
|
|||||
| Carroll v. State, No. 261, 2004,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, August 12, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Highest court dismissed defendant's late-filed appeal of denial of motion for postconviction relief; he did not show one day late filing was due to court-related personnel as he received appealable order one day after 30-day appeal period started.
|
|||||
| Chadwick v. Metro Corp., No. 44, 2004,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, August 12, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Delaware libel suit was dismissed. First-filed Pennsylvania suit over same parties and issues was prior and stayed while husband was in Pennsylvania jail for divorce court contempt, and no party had meaningful Delaware jurisdictional contact.
|
|||||
| Graham v. Kent-Sussex Indus., C.A. No. 03C-05-013 ESB,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, August 12, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was granted to a transportation service provider in a negligence action; passenger could not establish that the provider owed her a duty to assist her in exiting a van, making summary judgment appropriate.
|
|||||
| McKinney v. Brandywine Court Condo. Council, Inc., C.A. No. 01C-08-017 WLW,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, KENT, August 12, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Superior court allowed some of the costs requested by a landlord as the prevailing party, on grounds that the disallowed fees were not recoverable as litigation costs, in a tenant's personal injury suit after the tenant rejected an offer of judgment.
|
|||||
| Pena v. State, No. 555, 2003,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, August 12, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court properly denied a defendant's motion for a mistrial where, despite a witness improperly referencing a narcotics investigation, the trial judge provided sufficient cautionary instructions to the jury that cured any potential prejudice.
|
|||||
| State v. Patterson, Def. ID # 0105004069,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, August 12, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion for postconviction relief, filed on a form provided for motions made pursuant to Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 61, which also made a repetitive request for a sentence modification, was denied. Further, grounds for denial were also supported by defendant's unintelligible allegations of an abuse of discretion and misrepresentation.
|
|||||
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. |
