Shawe v. Elting ( 2015 )


Menu:
  • IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    PHILH3 R. SHAWE and SHIRLEY §
    SHAWE, § No. 498, 2015
    §
    Respondents Below, § Court Below—Court of Chancery
    Appellants, § of the State of Delaware
    §
    v. § C.A. Nos. 9700 and 10449-CB
    §
    ELIZABETH ELTING, §
    §
    Petitioner Below, §
    Appellee. §
    Submitted: September 25, 2015
    Decided: September 28, 2015
    Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND and VALIHURA, Justices.
    O R D E R
    This 28th day of September 2015, having considered the notice of
    appeal from interlocutory order, the supplemental notice of appeal from
    interlocutory order, and the motion to stay pending appeal, it appears to the
    Court that:
    (l) The respondents-below/appellants, Philip R. Shawe and Shirley
    Shawe (“the Shawes”), have petitioned this Court under Supreme Court Rule
    42 to accept an appeal fiom the Court of Chancery’s August 13, 2015 opinion
    granting the petitioner-below/appellee’s petitions for dissolution and the
    court’s August 13, 2015 order appointing a custodian. The Shawes have filed
    a motion to stay pending appeal.
    (2) On August 24, 2015, the Shawes filed a “motion for entry of
    judgment [under Court of Chancery Rule 54(b)] or certification of an
    interlocutory appeal and motion for a stay pending appeal.” By order dated
    September 15, 2015, the Court of Chancery denied the application for
    certification after considering each of the eight criteria in Rule 42(b)(iii)(A)-
    (H). Having considered the September 15 order, the Court agrees with the
    Court of Chancery’s analysis and denial of certification. The Court concludes
    that interlocutory review of the August 13, 2015 opinion and the order
    appointing a custodian will not terminate the litigation or otherwise serve the
    considerations of justice.
    (3) Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound
    discretion of the Court. In the exercise of discretion, the Court has concluded
    that the application for interlocutory review should be refused.
    NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the
    interlocutory appeal is REFUSED. The motion to stay pending appeal is
    MOOT.
    BY THE COURT:
    Aflgw
    Justice
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 498, 2015

Judges: Holland

Filed Date: 9/28/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/29/2015