Sills v. Smith & Wesson, et al.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY MAYOR JAMES H. SILLS, THE CITY ) WILMINGTON, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) 5. SMITH & WESSON CORP., STURM RUGER & COMPANY, INC., BERETTA U.S.A., COLT S MANUFACTURING CO., GLOCK, INC., TAURUS INTERNATIONAL MANUFACTURING, INC., SIGARMS, INC., BRYCO ARMS, B.L. JENNINGS, INC., B.L. JENNINGS, INC., PHOENIX ARMS, HI-POINT FIREARMS, AMERICAN SHOOTING SPORTS COUNCIL, INC., NATIONAL SHOOTING SPORTS FOUNDATION, INC., and SPORTING ARMS AND AMMUNITION MANUFACTURERS INSTITUTE, INC., NAVEGAR, INC., (D/B/A INTRATEC ), Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C.A. No.: 99C-09-283-FSS Submitted: February 22, 2001 Decided: February 27, 2001 ORDER Upon All Parties Applications for Certification of Interlocutory Appeal DENIED On December 1, 2000 the Court decided all Defendants initial, dispositive motions. The Court dismissed part of the complaint, but it left most of Plaintiffs claims pending. In response to the parties requests for clarification or reargument, the Court issued a short order on January 23, 2001. On February 8 and 9, 2001, all parties filed applications for certification of an interlocutory appeal. Each side wants the Supreme Court to reverse the interlocutory order insofar as the order disagrees with its position. Each party firmly agrees with the interlocutory order in so far as the order supports its position. The Court recognizes that its interlocutory order will precipitate time-consuming and expensive discovery. Moreover, it probably will generate another round of dispositive motions. Nevertheless, this is important litigation. Similar cases are pending in several other jurisdictions. Accordingly, while discovery in Delaware will add to Defendants overall expenses, the added cost attributable to litigation in Delaware should not be prohibitive. Meanwhile, the Court will benefit from the opportunity to resolve this case finally after more extensive discovery. Moreover, the Court will continue to benefit from precedents established in other jurisdictions. In terms of the Court s interlocutory order, itself, the order does not determine a substantial issue, present an original question of law or otherwise meet Supreme Court Rule 42(b) s criteria. Other than their financial concerns, the parties contentions overstate the interlocutory order s import. For the foregoing reasons, the Court declines to certify an interlocutory appeal from the December 1, 2000 Order and its January 23, 2001 clarification. IT IS SO ORDERED. Date oc: Prothonotary (Civil Division) pc: Diane Clarke Streett, Esquire Cathy A. Jenkins, Esquire Arthur D. Kuhl, Esquire William J. Cattie, III, Esquire Barbara Fruehauf, Esquire Richard D. Abrams, Esquire James F. Bailey, Jr., Esquire John E. James, Esquire Richard L. Horwitz, Esquire Stephen P. Casarino, Esquire P. Clarkson Collins, Jr., Esquire Allen M. Terrell, Jr., Esquire Chad Shandler, Esquire Judge
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.
