Opinion
No. 200, 2001.
June 25, 2001.
Appeal from the Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County. C.A. No. 99C-10-016.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
Unpublished Opinion is below.
DELMARVA WAREHOUSE, INC., Defendant Below-Appellant, v. PHINEAS YODER, Plaintiff Below-Appellee. No. 200, 2001. Supreme Court of Delaware. Submitted: June 18, 2001. Decided: June 25, 2001.
Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County. C.A. No. 99C-10-016.
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH, and HOLLAND, Justices.
ORDER
This 25th day of June 2001, upon consideration of the appellee's motion to dismiss and the appellant's response thereto, it appears to the Court that:
(1) The appellant, Delmarva Warehouse, Inc., filed this appeal from an opinion of the Superior Court granting the appellee's motion for summary judgment.
The Superior Court's opinion directed the parties to confer and to submit a proposed form of order implementing the substance of the court's opinion. The parties submitted a proposed form of order as directed, but to date, no final order has been docketed in the case.
(2) The appellee, Phineas Yoder, has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal on the ground that the Superior Court's summary judgment opinion is interlocutory and that Delmarva has not complied with Supreme Court Rule 42, which governs appeals from interlocutory orders. Yoder contends that until the Superior Court dockets a final order entering judgment in his favor, the summary judgment opinion is not final or appealable.
(3) Upon consideration of the parties' positions, we find it manifest that this appeal is interlocutory. The further action required by the Superior Court in this matter did not involve a purely ministerial act but an exercise of discretion by the court in fashioning an appropriate implementing order. The ruling from which the appeal is taken is interlocutory in nature because it did not finally determine and terminate the cause before the Superior Court. See Julian v. State, Del. Supr., 440 A.2d 990 (1982).
Furthermore, appellants have failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 42 in seeking to appeal from an interlocutory order.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Yoder's motion to dismiss is granted. This appeal is hereby DISMISSED.