 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| In re Sample, Nos. 340, 2008, 356, 2008 CONSOLIDATED n11 Because these petitions present common questions of fact and law, we hereby consolidate them sua sponte.,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, September 3, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the Attorney General's Office obtained the documents requested by an inmate and provided him with copies of them, the inmate failed to invoke the original jurisdiction of the state supreme court; accordingly, his petition for a writ of mandamus under Del. Const. art. IV, ¿ 11(6), Del. Sup. Ct. R. 43 was dismissed as moot.
|
|||||
| Prospero v. State, No. 191, 2008,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, September 3, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant did not raise any issues for consideration on appeal and because his appeal was found to be wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable issues, pursuant to Del. Sup. Ct. R. 26(c), the State's motion to affirm was granted, the judgment was affirmed, and counsel's motion to withdraw was moot.
|
|||||
| State v. Jones, I.D. No. 9911016309,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, September 3, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate was denied postconviction relief were, inter alia, many claims were procedurally barred and inmate could not show cause or prejudice, and counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to allegedly false information in affidavit of probable cause for arrest warrant or failing to call alibi witness where inmate failed to show viable alibi.
|
|||||
| Carnevale v. Godwin, C.A. No.: 07A-11-001 FSS,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, September 4, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Lagrone v. American Mortell Corp., C.A. No. 04C-10-116-ASB, C.A. No. 07C-12-019-JRS,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, September 4, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Asbestos co-defendants' indemnification complaint against another co-defendant was dismissed because two co-defendants had no indemnifiable loss since neither contributed to settle the case, and the settling co-defendant had no contractual basis for indemnification and it could not as a matter of law pursue a claim for implied indemnification.
|
|||||
| Merritt v. UPS, No. 318, 2007,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, September 4, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was reversed as employer's admission that workers' compensation claimant's partial disability under Del. Code Ann. tit. 19, ¿ 2325 was ongoing was judicial admission. Delaware Industrial Accident Board erred in failing to explain why it relied on independent medical examiner's opinion that partial disability would cease at specific time.
|
|||||
| Parfi Holding AB v. Mirror Image Internet, Inc., C.A. No. 18507-VCS,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, September 4, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where minority shareholders made material misrepresentations to a chancery court in order to have it lift a stay of their derivative action that had been entered pending termination of Swedish arbitration proceedings, dismissal of the action under Del. Ch. Ct. R. 41(b) and under the court's inherent authority was warranted.
|
|||||
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. |
