 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Chabot v. Gemcraft Homes Del., Inc., Civil Action No. 04C-01-020 (THG),
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, November 23, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employer did not violate the WPC Act as parties agreed in employee's contract that "commissions (were) earned at settlement, but (were to) be paid 50 percent at sale and 50 percent at settlement"; contract was not ambiguous and back-end commissions on sales that closed after employee left employer were not earned.
|
|||||
| Dweck v. Nassar, C.A. No. 1353-N,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, November 23, 2005, Decided , November 23, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court dismissed a minority shareholders' claims related to breach of a stockholder agreement because it was a voting trust under Del. Code Ann. tit. 8, ¿ 218, as it altered how shares were voted, and because it was unenforceable since it was not executed. Thus, the shareholder was not entitled to Del. Code Ann. tit. 8, ¿ 226 custodial relief.
|
|||||
| Fleming v. Jackson, No. 228, 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, November 23, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of motion to dismiss a personal injury action was proper, as Del. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 6(a) extended the two-year limitations period of Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, ¿¿8119 for filing suit where the last day to file the suit was on a Saturday, and that Monday was a legal holiday; accordingly, the suit was timely filed on Tuesday.
|
|||||
| Orloff v. Shulman, C.A. No. 852-N,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, November 23, 2005, Decided , November 23, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Though two derivative action claims were barred by res judicata and, therefore, dismissed under Del. Ch. Ct. R. 12(b)(6) as having been already litigated in a separate action, the minority shareholders' remaining claims asserting breaches of the directors' fiduciary duties and waste were found viable.
|
|||||
| Rapoport v. Litig. Trust of MDIP, Inc., Civil Action No. 1035-N,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, November 23, 2005, Decided , November 23, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A Delaware court accepted jurisdiction of a declaratory judgment action brought by a bankrupt corporation's directors against a trust and refused to dismiss the suit in favor of an Ohio case filed by the trust as the cases were deemed contemporaneously filed and forum non conveniens factors weighed in favor of Delaware.
|
|||||
| Seinfeld v. Verizon Communs., Inc., C.A. No. 1100-N,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, November 23, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a stockholder failed to show a credible basis to support his claim that a corporation's board of directors committed waste or mismanagement in compensating three of its executives during a relevant time period, but his demand was made merely on the basis of suspicion or curiosity, summary judgment was entered against said claim.
|
|||||
| State v. Gregory, ID No. 9811012362,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, November 23, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's postconviction relief motion was received by prothonotary's office four days after Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 61(i)(4)'s three-year limit so all claims, except meritless ineffective counsel claim, were procedurally barred. Barred claims involved grand jury proceedings, incorrect characterization of evidence, and Brady violations.
|
|||||
| Timo Indus. v. Siemens Demag Delaval Turbomachinery, Inc., No. 208, 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, November 23, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
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. |
