Miller v. Bell Atlantic-Delaware, Inc.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE KENNETH A. MILLER, JR. and SANGAY MILLER, his wife, Plaintiffs BelowAppellants, and BELL ATLANTICDELAWARE, INC., Plaintiff BelowAppellee, v. PATRELL Y. PURCELL, et al., Defendants BelowAppellees. § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § No. 638, 2001 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County C.A. No. 97C-05-054 Submitted: January 4, 2002 Decided: April 11, 2002 Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, BERGER and STEELE, Justices ORDER This 11th day of April 2002, it appears to the Court that: (1) Plaintiffs-appellants, Kenneth A. Miller, Jr. and Sangay Miller, filed an appeal from the November 15, 2001 order of the Superior Court granting the motion of plaintiff-appellee, Bell Atlantic-Delaware, Inc., to enforce a worker s compensation lien. (2) On December 19, 2001, the Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b) directing the appellants to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed because it is from an interlocutory, and not a final, order. On January 4, 2002,1 the appellants filed a response to the notice to show cause. In the response, the appellants concede that the Superior Court s November 15, 2001 order was not certified as a final order pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 54(b). (3) When a civil action involves multiple claims and multiple parties, a judgment regarding any claim or any party does not become final until the entry of the last judgment that resolves all claims as to all parties unless an interlocutory ruling as to a claim or party is certified pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 54(b).2 There has been no such certification here. (4) The Court has concluded that the Superior Court s November 15, 2001 order is an interlocutory, and not a final, order.3 The appellants have failed 1 Beyond the 10-day deadline set forth in the notice. 2 Harrison v. Ramunno, 730 A.2d 653, 654 (Del. 1999). 3 Showell Poultry v. Delmarva Poultry Corp., 146 A.2d 794, 795-96 (Del. 1958). See also Miller v. Suburban Propane Gas Corp., 565 A.2d 913, 914 (Del. 1989). 2 to comply with the procedural requirements of Supreme Court Rule 42(c) and (d) and, absent compliance, this Court must decline to exercise its appellate jurisdiction.4 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the appeal is DISMISSED. BY THE COURT: _/s/ Myron T. Steele_________________ Justice 4 Stroud v. Milliken Enterprises, Inc., 552 A.2d 476, 481-82 (Del. 1989). 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.