Hazzard, et al. v. Harris

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE OFFICER MATTHEW HAZZARD, § DETECTIVE KECIA ROSADO, and § No. 677, 2015 DETECTIVE BRIAN CONKEY, § § § Court Below—Superior Court Defendants Below, § of the State of Delaware Appellants, § § C.A. No. N14C-09-034 v. § § CHRISTOPHER HARRIS, § § Plaintiff Below, § Appellee. Submitted: January 5, 2016 Decided: January 22, 2016 Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices. ORDER This 22nd day of January 2016, having considered the notice of appeal from an interlocutory order and the supplemental notice of appeal from an interlocutory order, it appears to the Court that: (1) The appellants, Officer Matthew Hazzard, Detective Kecia Rosado, and Detective Brian Conkey have petitioned this Court, under Supreme Court Rule 42, to accept an appeal from the Superior Court’s November 17, 2015 order denying their motion for summary judgment. The Superior Court concluded that factual questions precluded entry of judgment as a matter of law. In an order dated January 4, 2016, the Superior Court found that the appellant’s application for certification of an interlocutory appeal was untimely, the appellants did not show good cause for their untimely application, and the application did not satisfy the criteria of Rule 42. (2) Having considered the Superior Court’s November 17, 2015 order, the Court agrees with the Superior Court’s order denying the application for certification. The application, which was filed on December 10, 2015, was untimely because it was filed more than ten days after the Superior Court’s November 17, 2015 order. 1 The appellants did not establish good cause to excuse their untimely application. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the interlocutory appeal is REFUSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Justice 1 Supr. Ct. R. 42(c) (“Such application shall be served and filed within 10 days of the entry of the order from which the appeal is sought or such longer time as the trial court, in its discretion, may order for good cause shown.”). 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.