Shahin v. Delaware Federal Credit Union

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE NINA and MAZEN SHAHIN, Appellants BelowAppellants, v. DELAWARE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Appellee BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § § No. 47, 2008 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Kent County C.A. No. 07A-02-001 Submitted: February 11, 2008 Decided: March 7, 2008 Before BERGER, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. ORDER This 7th day of March 2008, it appears to the Court that: (1) On January 28, 2008, the Court received the appellants notice of appeal from a Superior Court order denying their motions entitled, Motion to Override the Court of Common Pleas Decision Denying Appellants Access to the Tape of Hearing of January 17, 2007 and Motion Requesting a Stay of Case Briefing Scheduled for September 24, 2007. The Assistant Clerk of this Court issued a notice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b) directing the appellants to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for their failure to comply with Supreme Court Rule 42 in seeking to take an interlocutory appeal. (2) The appellants filed a response to the notice to show cause on February 11, 2008, which sets forth the reasons why they believe they are entitled to the relief denied by the Superior Court. They offer no explanation, however, for their failure to make any attempt to comply with Rule 42 in seeking to appeal the Superior Court s interlocutory ruling. (3) The ruling from which the appeal is taken is interlocutory in nature because it did not finally determine and terminate the cause before the Superior Court.1 Absent compliance with Supreme Court Rule 42, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider an appeal from the Superior Court s interim order. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b), that the within appeal is DISMISSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Jack B. Jacobs Justice 1 See Julian v. State, 440 A.2d 990 (Del. 1982). -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.