Lesko ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •          IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    EMIL LEWIS LESKO, TRUSTEE   §
    UNDER REVOCABLE TRUST       §                 No. 670, 2015
    AGREEMENT OF EMIL LEWIS     §
    LESKO, DATED JUNE 4, 2003; AND
    §                 Court Below–Superior Court of
    7835.1765 SQUARE FEET OF LAND
    §                 the State of Delaware, in and for
    (PERMANENT EASEMENT); AND   §                 Sussex County
    458.4545 SQUARE FEET OF LAND§
    (TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION     §                 C.A. No. S13C-01-032
    EASEMENTS),                 §
    §
    Defendants Below,      §
    Appellants,            §
    §
    v.                     §
    §
    STATE OF DELAWARE, UPON THE §
    RELATION OF THE SECRETARY §
    OF THE DEPARTMENT OF        §
    TRANSPORTATION,             §
    §
    Plaintiff Below,       §
    Appellee.              §
    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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 670, 2015

Judges: Seitz

Filed Date: 12/14/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 3/3/2016