Modern Maturity Center, Inc. v. Coward
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE MODERN MATURITY CENTER, INC., Appellee BelowAppellant, v. BRENDA LEE COWARD, Appellant BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § § No. 197, 2003 Court BelowCSuperior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Kent County C.A. No. 01A-07-003 Submitted: April 29, 2003 Decided: May 16, 2003 Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, BERGER, and STEELE, Justices. ORDER This 16th day of May 2003, upon consideration of the appellee s motion to dismiss and the appellant s motion to remand, it appears to the Court that: (1) The appellant filed this appeal from an order of the Superior Court, which reversed a decision of the Industrial Accident Board and remanded the matter to the Board for further action. The appellee has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal on the ground that there is a fee application pending in the Superior Court, which renders this appeal interlocutory. The appellant did not file a response to the motion to dismiss, but instead filed a motion requesting that this Court remand the appeal to Superior Court, with jurisdiction retained, for resolution of the pending fee application. (2) We hold that that the appeal must be dismissed because it was taken from an unappealable interlocutory order and was not filed in compliance with Supreme Court Rule 42. Although neither party addressed it, we find that the Superior Court s order remanding this case to the Industrial Accident Board is not a final order because it required the Board to take further action that was more than purely ministerial in nature.1 The further action required by the Board in fashioning an appropriate final judgment in this case renders the appellant s appeal to this Court interlocutory.2 A determination of the fee application would not cure the interlocutory nature of the Superior Court s remand order. Accordingly, a remand to the Superior Court for consideration of the fee application would serve no purpose. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to remand is DENIED. The appeal hereby is DISMISSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Myron T. Steele Justice 1 Pollard v. The Placers, Inc., 692 A.2d 879, 880-81 (Del. 1997). 2 Mountaire Farms, Inc. v. Showell, 2003 WL 728558 (Del. Feb. 29, 2003). 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.
