Blount v. Creative Travel
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ALFRED BLOUNT, Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. CREATIVE TRAVEL, Defendant Below, Appellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 537, 2008 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County C.A. No. 07A-11-006 Submitted: November 14, 2008 Decided: December 16, 2008 Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices. ORDER This 16th day of December 2008, it appears to the Court that: (1) On October 27, 2008, the Court received Alfred Blount s untimely notice of appeal from the Superior Court s memorandum opinion of September 10, 2008 that affirmed a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or before October 10, 2008.1 (2) On October 28, 2008, the Clerk issued a notice directing that Blount show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely 1 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a). filed.2 Blount filed a response to the notice to show cause on November 14, 2008. Blount s response does not address the jurisdictional issue raised in the notice to show cause. (3) Under Delaware law, a notice of appeal must be received by the Office of the Clerk within the applicable time period to be effective.3 Unless an appellant can demonstrate that the failure to timely file a notice of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel, an untimely appeal cannot be considered.4 (4) Blount does not contend, and the record does not reflect, that his failure to timely file the notice of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel. This case does not fall within the exception to the general rule that mandates the timely filing of a notice of appeal. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Randy J. Holland Justice 2 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 29(b). See Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989) (stating that [t]ime is a jurisdictional requirement ); Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 4 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 3 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.
