Joyner v. The News Journal, et al.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE BRUCE S. JOYNER, Plaintiff BelowAppellant, v. THE NEWS JOURNAL, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, and MEREDITH HASKELL, Plaintiff BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § § § § No. 372, 2003 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County C.A. No. 03A-05-004 Submitted: November 21, 2003 Decided: December 18, 2003 Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and BERGER, Justices. ORDER This 18th day of December 2003, upon consideration of the parties briefs, the appellees motion to dismiss, and the appellant s response thereto, it appears to the Court that: (1) On July 29, 2003, the plaintiff below, Bruce Joyner, filed a notice of appeal, purporting to appeal from an order of the Superior Court dated May 14, 2003. The May 14 order dismissed Joyner s appeal to the Superior Court from an order of the Industrial Accident Board because Joyner had failed to file the necessary paperwork, despite the Superior Court s instructions. (2) The appellees filed a motion to dismiss Joyner s appeal to this Court on the ground that Joyner failed to file his notice of appeal in a timely manner. Joyner responded to the motion to dismiss. Joyner asserted that his appeal was timely filed because, in addition to appealing the May 14 order, he also was appealing another order of the Superior Court dated June 30, 2003. The Superior Court s June 30 order informed Joyner that his case had been closed and that the Superior Court would not accept further filings from him in the case. Joyner contended that his notice of appeal was filed within thirty days of the June 30 order and, therefore, his appeal from both orders was timely. The appellees replied that Joyner had never filed a notice of appeal from the June 30 order and that Joyner s time to file an appeal from the June 30 order had long since expired. (3) Without reaching the issue of timeliness, the Court finds that Joyner s appeal must be dismissed on alternative grounds, which were raised by the appellees in their answering brief on appeal. On September 3, 2003, Joyner filed a set of documents with the Court that purported be his opening brief on appeal. The documents, which total over 100 pages, are a random amalgamation of correspondence, transcripts, and reports spanning a period 2 of more than six years. There is nothing in the set of documents that remotely resembles a statement of facts or a presentation of arguments for the Court s consideration on appeal. Although the Court affords some degree of leniency to self-represented litigants as to briefing requirements, an appellant s opening brief, at a minimum, must be adequate so that the Court can conduct a meaningful review of the merits of the appellant s claims.* In this appeal, Joyner presents no claims whatsoever. Accordingly, in the absence of any claims for review, the appeal must be dismissed. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the within appeal hereby is DISMISSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Randy J. Holland Justice * Yancey v. National Trust Co., 1998 WL 309819 (Del. May 19, 1998). 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.
