Bailey v. Jackson

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
MICHAEL A. BAILEY,1 §
§
Petitioner Below, § No. 333, 2016
Appellant, §
§ Court Below—Family Court
v. § of the State of Delaware
§
JACKIE J. JACKSON, § File No. CN08-05031
§ Petition Nos. 13-38057, 14-05488,
Respondent Below, § and 14-16798
Appellee. §
Submitted: July 20, 2016
Decided: August 9, 2016
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND and SEITZ, Justices.
ORDER
This 9th day of August 2016, it appears to the Court that:
(1) We have before us an application for interlocutory review of a Family
Court order, dated May 10, 2016, denying Michael A. Bailey’s motion for
discovery of an ex parte communication in visitation, rule to show cause, and
custody proceedings. In a well-reasoned order dated June 30, 2016 and filed with
this Court on July 20, 2016, the Family Court carefully considered the Rule 42(b)
criteria and explained why interlocutory review was not warranted.
1
The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d).
(2) Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound
discretion of this Court. In the exercise of its discretion, the Court has concluded,
for the reasons stated by the Family Court, that the application for interlocutory
review does not meet the requirements of Rule 42 and should be refused.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the interlocutory appeal is
REFUSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.
Chief Justice
2