Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Williams v. Bluffs Limited Partnership

Supreme Court of Delaware

July 1, 2014

TERRY WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Below, Appellant,
v.
THE BLUFFS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Defendant-Below, Appellee

Submitted June 11, 2014

Case Closed July 1, 2014.

Editorial Note:

This decision has been designated as "Table of Decisions Without Published Opinions." in the Atlantic Reporter.

Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County. C.A. No. N13C-10-359.

Before STRINE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and RIDGELY, Justices.

OPINION

ORDER

Leo E. Strine, Jr. Chief Justice

This 1st day of July 2014, it appears to the Court that:

(1) The appellant, Terry Williams, has petitioned this Court, under Supreme Court Rule 42, to accept an interlocutory appeal from a Superior Court order dated May 13, 2014. The Superior Court order granted the motion of the appellee, The Bluffs Limited Partnership (" The Bluffs" ),[1] to vacate a default judgment obtained by Williams.

(2) Williams filed an application for certification of an interlocutory appeal and/or a stay of the proceedings in the Superior Court on May 19, 2014. The Bluffs responded to the certification application on May 29, 2014. Williams filed this interlocutory appeal on June 2, 2014.

(3) On June 5, 2014, the Superior Court denied Williams' application for certification of an interlocutory appeal and/or a stay of the proceedings. On June 11, 2014, Williams filed a supplemental notice of appeal with the Superior Court's order denying his certification application.

(4) Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound discretion of this Court and are granted only in exceptional circumstances.[2] Having considered the Superior Court's May 13, 2014 order and the Superior Court's denial of Williams' certification application, this Court has concluded that the application for interlocutory review does not meet the requirements of Supreme Court Rule 42 and should be refused.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that this interlocutory appeal is REFUSED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.