Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, P.C. v. Nine Ninety Nine, L.L.C.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY, P.C., and RICHARD FORSTEN, Defendants BelowAppellants, v. NINE NINETY NINE, L.L.C., Plaintiff BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § § § No. 436, 2011 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County C.A. No. 08C-12-258 Submitted: August 17, 2011 Decided: August 25, 2011 Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and RIDGELY, Justices. ORDER This 25th day of August 2011, it appears to the Court that: (1) The defendants-appellants have petitioned this Court, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 42, to accept an appeal from an interlocutory order of the Superior Court dated July 29, 2011. Among other things, the trial court s order denied the defendants motion for summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds. (2) The defendants filed their application for certification to take an interlocutory appeal in the Superior Court on August 8, 2011. The Superior Court denied the certification application on August 16, 2011. When the trial judge denied the certification, he expressed the view that even if this Court reversed on the statute of limitations question, the case would be remanded and remain active. (3) Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound discretion of this Court. In the exercise of its discretion, this Court has concluded that the application for interlocutory review does not meet the requirements of Supreme Court Rule 42(b) and should be refused. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the within interlocutory appeal be REFUSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Myron T. Steele Chief Justice -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.
