Whitaker v. Whitaker
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE LARRY WHITAKER,1 Respondent BelowAppellant, v. BETTY B. WHITAKER, Petitioner BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 252, 2012 Court Below Family Court of the State of Delaware in and for Kent County File No. CK10-01981 Petition No. 11-29771 Submitted: May 30, 2012 Decided: June 19, 2012 Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices ORDER This 19th day of June 2012, it appears to the Court that: (1) On May 14, 2012, the Court received the appellant s notice of appeal from the Family Court s April 24, 2012 order denying his request to proceed in forma pauperis in connection with a petition filed in the Family Court. On May 15, 2012, the Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b) directing the appellant to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with Rule 42 when taking an appeal from an apparent interlocutory order. 1 The Court sua sponte assigned pseudonyms to the parties by Order dated May 15, 2012. Supr. Ct. R. 7(d). (2) On May 30, 2012, the appellant filed a response to the notice to show cause. In his response, the appellant acknowledges that his appeal is interlocutory, but nevertheless requests the Court to entertain the appeal. The appellant also appears to argue that he has satisfied the requirements of Rule 42. (3) It is undisputed that the appellant s appeal is interlocutory. Absent compliance with Rule 42, this Court is without jurisdiction to entertain an interlocutory appeal.2 To the extent the appellant takes the position that he has complied with the requirements of Rule 42, he is incorrect. Among other things, Rule 42 requires that application for certification to take an interlocutory appeal be made in the first instance to the trial court.3 The record does not reflect that the procedures outlined for application to take an interlocutory appeal, including application to the trial court, were followed in this case. As such, this Court lacks the authority to entertain the appeal and it must be dismissed. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is DISMISSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Henry duPont Ridgely Justice 2 3 Julian v. State, 440 A.2d 990, 991 (Del. 1982). Supr. Ct. R. 42(c). 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.
