Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Doe v. Cahill, 884 A.2d 451 (Del. 2005), [1] is a significant case in the realm of anonymous internet speech and the First Amendment.While similar issues had been tackled involving criticism of a publicly traded company, [2] the case marks the first time the Delaware Supreme Court addressed the issue of anonymous internet speech and defamation "in the context of a case involving political ...
In addition to the cases in Delaware, the drugmakers are facing about 4,000 claims in California state court and about 2,000 in various other state courts around the country.
In January 2022, the Delaware Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Superior Court. [77] [78] Delaware Supreme Court Chief Justice Collins J. Seitz Jr. said: "the article at the crux of the case—by Yahoo News reporter Michael Isikoff—was either completely truthful or, 'at a minimum,' conveyed a true 'gist,' even if it included some ...
The Delaware Superior Court, previously known as the Superior Court and Orphans' Court, is the state trial court of general jurisdiction in the state of Delaware.It has original jurisdiction over most criminal and civil cases (except for suits at equity, which are handled by the Delaware Court of Chancery).
A Delaware judge on Tuesday dismissed a shareholder lawsuit asserting novel claims about the roles of corporate leaders and arguing that the loyalties of Meta directors and company founder Mark ...
Delaware’s vanity license plate program is unconstitutional because it allows officials to discriminate against certain viewpoints when deciding whether to approve applications, a federal judge ...
Dominion Voting Systems v Fox Corporation, Superior Court of the State of Delaware , Complaint, Submitted March 15, 2022. Dominion Voting Systems v Fox Corporation, Superior Court of the State of Delaware, Brief in Support of Dominion Motion for Summary Judgment on Liability of Fox News Network, Public version filed February 16, 2023.
In an opinion written by Justice Holland, the court held that the plaintiff's evidence should have been submitted to the jury because the accident might have been foreseeable. "In general, where the actions of a passenger that cause an accident are not foreseeable, there is no negligence attributable to the driver. But, when actions of a ...