Bailey v. Walker
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE WAYNE F. BAILEY, JR.,1 Petitioner Below, Appellant, v. KIM WALKER, Respondent Below, Appellee. ____________________________ WAYNE F. BAILEY, JR., Petitioner Below, Appellant, v. KIM WALKER, Respondent Below, Appellee. § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § Nos. 179/180, 2012 Consolidated Court Below Family Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Sussex County File No. CS04-02974 Court Below Family Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Sussex County File No. CS04-02974 Submitted: April 27, 2012 Decided: May 1, 2012 Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. ORDER This 1st day of May 2012, it appears to the Court that: 1 The Court sua sponte assigned pseudonyms to the parties in both appeals by Orders dated April 5, 2012. Supr. Ct. R. 7(d). (1) The petitioner-appellant, Wayne F. Bailey, Jr. (the appellant ), has petitioned this Court, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 42, to accept an appeal from three interlocutory orders of the Family Court dated March 28, 2012 specifically, the order granting emergency interim relief, and the orders denying the motions to relinquish jurisdiction and for a continuance. (2) The appellant filed his application for certification to take an interlocutory appeal in the Family Court on or about April 4, 2012. On April 18, 2012, the Family Court denied the application for certification on the ground that the requirements of Supreme Court Rule 42 had not been met. (3) Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound discretion of this Court. In the exercise of its discretion, the Court has concluded that the appellant s application for interlocutory review fails to meet the requirements of Supreme Court Rule 42 and, therefore, should be refused. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the interlocutory appeal is REFUSED.2 BY THE COURT: /s/ Jack B. Jacobs Justice 2 The appellant s request to stay the Family Court orders is hereby denied as moot. 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.
