 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Dailey v. State, No. 425, 2007,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, September 2, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was affirmed as victim's prior videotaped statement was admissible under Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, §§ 3507 and 3513. Since statement could be observed and jury could hear victim testify to same events she discussed in live testimony, concerns were met that in other circumstances required declarant to touch on statement itself.
|
|||||
| EBG Holdings LLC v. Vredezicht's Gravenhage 109 B.V., Civil Action No. 3184-VCP,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, September 2, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dutch bank's motion to dismiss under Court of Chancery Rules 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction was granted because the bank's actions did not provide a basis for subjecting it to personal jurisdiction under 10 Del. C. § 3104, the bank did not consent to jurisdiction, and the bank's subsidiary committed no jurisdictional acts in Delaware.
|
|||||
| French v. Collins, No. 76, 2008,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, September 2, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Marital property distribution matter was remanded for determination of premarital value of husband's deferred compensation account as finding that marital asset was valued at $ 37,232 discounted husband's testimony and trial court's order that indicated that it accepted husband's assertion that majority of account was premarital.
|
|||||
| In re Buchanan, No. 368, 2008,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, September 2, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a husband's repetitive and excessive filings constituted an abuse of process, and because his petition for a writ of mandamus failed to invoke the original jurisdiction of the Delaware Supreme Court, the petition was denied.
|
|||||
| In re Lear Corp. S'holder Litig., Cons. C.A. No. 2728-VCS,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, September 2, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court dismissed entire amended complaint alleging, inter alia, that directors breached fiduciary duty for agreeing to pay fee if merger was rejected in return for bidder increasing price; shareholders did not sufficiently plead Del. Code Ann. tit. 8, § 102(b)(7) non-exculpated claim, as they did not show directors acted in bad faith.
|
|||||
| Option One Mortg. v. Cahall, C.A. No. 06L-09-105 CHT,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, September 2, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the owners' property was a manual addition to the sheriff's sale list, which followed an unclear, recorded message that unwittingly encouraged their self-serving belief that their property's sale had been stayed, the sheriff's sale was irregular and had to be set aside if the owners could pay the amount due.
|
|||||
| Reed v. State, No. 221, 2008,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, September 2, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Robinson v. State, No. 258, 2008,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, September 2, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant's postconviction motion was filed nearly 17 years after his guilty plea and sentencing, and in the absence of defendant's showing of a colorable claim, the motion was properly summarily dismissed pursuant to Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 61(i)(1), (5).
|
|||||
| Tatem v. State, No. 241, 2008,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, September 2, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because nothing in the record supported defendant's contention that his failure to timely appeal was attributable to court-related personnel, defendant did not comply with the jurisdictional requirements of Del. Sup. Ct. R. 6, 10(a); therefore, pursuant to Del. Sup. Ct. R. 29(b), the appeal was dismissed.
|
|||||
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. |
