Beeghley v. Hilk
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE BARBARA BEEGHLEY, Plaintiff BelowAppellant, v. KENNETH HILK and CAROL HILK, Defendants BelowAppellees. § § § § § § § § § § § § No. 136, 2002 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County C.A. No. 99C-08-202 Submitted: April 8, 2002 Decided: April 17, 2002 Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and HOLLAND, Justices ORDER This 17th day of April 2002, it appears to the Court that: (1) On March 18, 2002, this Court received the appellant s notice of appeal from the Superior Court s letter ruling dated March 8, 2002, which rescheduled the trial date and set a briefing schedule in connection with appellees motion for summary judgment. (2) On March 20, 2002, the Clerk s office issued a notice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b) directing the appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for her failure to comply with Supreme Court Rule 42 when taking an appeal from an apparent interlocutory order. On March 26, 2002, the appellees filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. The Clerk directed the appellant to respond to the appellees motion to dismiss. In her response, the appellant states that the March 8, 2002 letter ruling of the Superior Court is not interlocutory because it pertains to a procedural, and not a substantive, issue. (3) The test for whether an order is final and therefore ripe for appeal is whether the trial court has clearly declared its intention that the order be the court s final act in a case.1 The Superior Court s March 8, 2002 letter ruling clearly was not the court s final act in this case for purposes of appeal since its decision on the motion for summary judgment has not yet been issued. Accordingly, the appeal is premature absent compliance with the requirements for taking an interlocutory appeal in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 42. Because the appellant has not attempted to comply with the requirements of Rule 42, her appeal must be dismissed. 1 J.I. Kislak Mortgage Corp. of Delaware v. William Matthews Builders, Inc., 303 A.2d 648, 650 (Del. 1973). -2- NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the appeal is DISMISSED. BY THE COURT: s/Joseph T. Walsh Justice -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.
