 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Aveta, Inc. v. Olivieri, C.A. No. 07C-11-119 MMJ,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, September 10, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants' motion under Del. Sup. Ct. R. 42 for an order certifying an appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court of an order denying their motion to dismiss was denied because they failed to demonstrate that Rule 42(b) criteria applied. Defendants did not establish the existence of exceptional circumstances to warrant certification.
|
|||||
| Duthie v. Corsolutions Med., Inc., C.A. No. 3048-VCN,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, KENT, September 10, 2008, Decided, September 10, 2008, EFiled
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Full defense of the witnesses against the charges brought by the corporations, whether in litigation or in the public forum, required the advancement of fees to pay for the assertion of defamation claims. The court instructed the witnesses' counsel to certify in good faith that the fees for which advancement was sought were incurred reasonably.
|
|||||
| Hill v. State, No. 101, 2008,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, September 10, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant's claims on appeal were either unpreserved or a misstatement of Delaware law, Del. Sup. Ct. R. 8 precluded appellate review; accordingly, defendant's Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 61 motion was properly denied.
|
|||||
| In re Countrywide Corp. S'holders Litig., C.A. No. 3464-VCN,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, KENT, September 10, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Chancery court, under Del. Ch. Ct. R. 26(c) and 45(c), determined that limited additional discovery regarding objecting shareholders' derivative claims was appropriate as a matter of efficiency and to avoid needless, and likely unhelpful, speculation when class representatives and corporate directors and a bank entered into a settlement agreement.
|
|||||
| Jamison v. State, No. 158, 2008,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, September 10, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant had the requisite number of prior felony convictions to establish his habitual offender status, he was properly declared a habitual offender pursuant to Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, ¿ 4214(a); accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying his motion for modification of sentence.
|
|||||
| Marvel v. State, No. 345, 2008,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, September 10, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An inmate's Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 61 postconviction relief claims were procedurally defaulted because no evidence showed (1) the indictment did not give him full notice of charges or bar a later prosecution, (2) introducing his letter to a coconspirator violated his free speech rights, or (3) insufficient evidence supported his convictions.
|
|||||
| Medek v. Medek, C.A. No. 2559-VCP,
COURT OF CHANCERY OF DELAWARE, NEW CASTLE, September 10, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court denied motion to dismiss former wife's claim of fraudulent conveyance of property in violation of Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, Del. Code Ann. tit. 6, ¿ 1301 et seq. (UFTA), for alleged lack of subject matter jurisdiction; that claim sought an equitable remedy over which the trial court had concurrent jurisdiction under the UFTA.
|
|||||
| Smith v. State, No. 252, 2008,
SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE, September 10, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant did not dispute the requisite number of qualifying convictions to support his habitual offender status under Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, ¿ 4214(b), and because ¿ 4214(b) had previously been found constitutional, defendant's claim that his sentence was illegal under Del. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 35(a) was denied as being without merit.
|
|||||
| State v. Morris, Def. ID No. 0205019125,
SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, SUSSEX, September 10, 2008, 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. |
