Sunderland et al v. Raider
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE CHARLES T. SUNDERLAND, KENT W. SUNDERLAND, JAMES P. SUNDERLAND, ROBERT SUNDERLAND, GEORGE M. WELLS, JOHN H. ROSS III, CHARLES T. WIEDENHOFT, CHARLES V. LARSON, JOHN W. WEBSTER, and ASH GROVE CEMENT CO., Defendants BelowAppellants, v. DANIEL F. RAIDER, Plaintiff BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § No. 593, 2002 Court Below Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County C.A. No. 19357 Submitted: October 24, 2002 Decided: November 4, 2002 Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and STEELE, Justices. ORDER This 4th day of November 2002, it appears to the Court that: (1) Defendant Ash Grove Cement Company ( Ash Grove ) has petitioned this Court, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 42, to appeal from an interlocutory ruling of the Court of Chancery dated September 24, 2002. The Court of Chancery s ruling denied defendants motion to characterize the action below as a derivative action. (2) On October 21, 2002, the Court of Chancery denied Ash Grove s application to certify an interlocutory appeal to this Court. (3) Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound discretion of this Court and are granted only in extraordinary cases. (4) 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 is REFUSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Carolyn Berger 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.
