Baker v. Ivory
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE DAMIAN AARON BAKER,1 Petitioner BelowAppellant, v. STEPHANIE MADISON IVORY, Respondent BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 259, 2011 Court Below Family Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County File No. CN95-10271 Petition No. 08-20087 Submitted: June 3, 2011 Decided: June 13, 2011 Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices ORDER This 13th day of June 2011, it appears to the Court that: (1) On May 19, 2011, the petitioner-appellant, Damian Aaron Baker, filed a notice of appeal from the Family Court s April 27, 2011 order denying his motion for emergency ex parte relief. On May 19, 2011, the Clerk of the Court issued a notice directing Baker to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed for failure to comply with Supreme Court Rule 42 when taking an appeal from an apparent interlocutory order.2 Baker 1 The Court sua sponte assigned pseudonyms to the parties by Order dated May 19, 2011. Supr. Ct. R. 7(d). 2 Supr. Ct. R. 29(b). filed a response on June 3, 2011, but did not address the issue of his failure to comply with Rule 42. (2) The Family Court s April 27, 2011 order is an interlocutory, and not a final, order.3 Absent compliance with Rule 42, this Court has no jurisdiction to review an interlocutory order of the Family Court.4 Because the Court does not have jurisdiction over this matter, the appeal must be dismissed. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b), that this appeal is DISMISSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Carolyn Berger Justice 3 4 Stroud v. Milliken Enterprises, Inc., 552 A.2d 476, 481-82 (Del. 1989). Showell Poultry v. Delmarva Poultry Corp., 146 A.2d 794, 795-96 (Del. 1958). 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.
