Siddles Directional v. Verizon
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § SIDDLES DIRECTIONAL DRILLING, INC., Defendant BelowAppellant, v. VERIZON DELAWARE, INC., Plaintiff BelowAppellee, and UTILIQUEST, LLC, Third-Party Defendant, Appellee. No. 35, 2006 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County C.A. No. 04C-10-244 Submitted: February 16, 2006 Decided: March 9, 2006 Before HOLLAND, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. ORDER This 9th day of March 2006, it appears to the Court that: (1) The defendant-appellant, Siddles Directional Drilling, Inc. ( Siddles ), has petitioned this Court, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 42, to accept an appeal from an interlocutory ruling of the Superior Court, entered December 20, 2005, denying Siddles motion for summary judgment on the ground that the statute of limitations had expired. (2) Siddles filed its application for certification to take an interlocutory appeal in the Superior Court on January 17, 2006. The Superior Court denied the certification application on February 7, 2006. (3) Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound discretion of this Court. In the exercise of its discretion, this Court has concluded that the application for interlocutory review does not meet the requirements of Supreme Court Rule 42(b) and should be refused. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the within interlocutory appeal be REFUSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Jack B. Jacobs Justice -2-
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.
