Delaware, September, 2008, 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 - September 2, 2008

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.

Search Cases for Free

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.

Search Cases for Free

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.

Search Cases for Free

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.

Search Cases for Free

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.

Search Cases for Free

Lewis v. State, No. 162, 2008, SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, September 2, 2008, Decided
View this case - free

Search Cases for Free

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.

Search Cases for Free

Reed v. State, No. 221, 2008, SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, September 2, 2008, Decided
View this case - free

Search Cases for 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).

Search Cases for Free

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.

Search Cases for Free

Communities Portal