Lesko, et al. v. State of Delaware, et al.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE EMIL LEWIS LESKO, TRUSTEE UNDER REVOCABLE TRUST AGREEMENT OF EMIL LEWIS LESKO, DATED JUNE 4, 2003; AND 7835.1765 SQUARE FEET OF LAND (PERMANENT EASEMENT); AND 458.4545 SQUARE FEET OF LAND (TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS), § § § § § § § § § § Defendants Below, § Appellants, § § v. § § STATE OF DELAWARE, UPON THE § RELATION OF THE SECRETARY § OF THE DEPARTMENT OF § TRANSPORTATION, § § Plaintiff Below, § Appellee. § No. 670, 2015 Court Below–Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Sussex County C.A. No. S13C-01-032 Submitted: December 10, 2015 Decided: December 14, 2015 Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VAUGHN and SEITZ, Justices. ORDER This 14th day of December 2015, having considered the notice of appeal from interlocutory order, it appears to the Court that: (1) Emil Lewis Lesko has petitioned this Court, under Supreme Court Rule 42, to accept an appeal from an interlocutory order entered by the Superior Court in a condemnation action. Lesko seeks review of the Superior Court’s November 18, 2015 memorandum opinion granting a motion in limine filed by the State of Delaware Department of Transportation. (2) By order dated December 4, 2015, the Superior Court denied Lesko’s application for certification of an interlocutory appeal. The court determined that interlocutory review of the November 18 memorandum opinion was not warranted. (3) The Court agrees with the Superior Court’s analysis. The Rule 42(b) principles and criteria do not weigh in favor of interlocutory review of the November 18 memorandum opinion. (4) Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound discretion of the Court. In this case, the Court concludes that interlocutory review of the November 18 memorandum opinion should be refused. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the interlocutory appeal is REFUSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 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.
