Lawson v. Bhatt

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE JACK W. LAWSON and MARY ANN LAWSON, Plaintiffs Below, Appellants, v. SHAILEN P. BHATT, Defendant Below, Appellee. § § § § § § § § § § § § No. 376, 2014 Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County C.A. No. N14C-01-020 Submitted: July 18, 2014 Decided: July 31, 2014 Before STRINE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices. ORDER This 31st day of July 2014, upon consideration of the notice and supplemental notice of interlocutory appeal, it appears to the Court that: (1) On January 14, 2014, the plaintiffs/appellants, Jack W. Lawson and Mary Ann Lawson (hereinafter the Lawsons ), filed a two-count amended complaint in the Superior Court. On February 20, 2014, defendant/appellee Shailen P. Bhatt, Secretary of the Delaware Department of Transportation, (hereinafter Bhatt ) moved to dismiss or, in the alternative, to stay Count II of the complaint. By order dated June 11, 2014, the Superior Court denied Bhatt s motion to dismiss and granted the alternative motion to stay Count II.1 (2) The Lawsons have petitioned this Court under Supreme Court Rule 42 to accept an interlocutory appeal from the Superior Court s order of June 11, 2014. By order dated July 14, 2014, the Superior Court denied the Lawsons application for certification of the interlocutory appeal.2 (3) Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound discretion of this Court and are granted only in exceptional circumstances.3 In this case, the Court has examined the Superior Court s June 11, 2014 order according to the criteria set forth in Rule 42 and has concluded that exceptional circumstances meriting interlocutory review do not exist in this case. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the interlocutory appeal is REFUSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Randy J. Holland Justice 1 Lawson v. State, 2014 WL 2599952 (Del. Super. June 11, 2014). 2 Lawson v. State, 2014 WL 3530835 (Del. Super. July 14, 2014). 3 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(b). 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.