Summary
affirming Court of Chancery's decision not to certify interlocutory appeal
Summary of this case from In re CNX Gas Corp.Opinion
No. 557, 2002
Submitted: October 9, 2002
Decided: October 10, 2002
Court Below: Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County (Consol. C.A. No. 19876)
Appeal refused.
Unpublished opinion is below.
IN RE PURE RESOURCES, INC. SHAREHOLDERS LITIGATION, CARDINAL CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs Below, Appellants, v. JOHN W. AMERMAN, DARRELL D. CHESSUM, KEITH A. COVINGTON, JOHN W. CREIGHTON, JR., JAMES W. CROWNOVER, FRANK C. HERRINGER, JACK D. HIGHTOWER, CHARLES R. LARSON, GRAYDON H. LAUGHBAUM, JR., TIMOTHY H. LING, H.D. MAXWELL, DONALD B. RICE, KEVIN W. SHARER, GEORGE G. STALEY, MARINA V.N. WHITMAN, CHARLES R. WILLIAMSON, HERBERT C. WILLIAMSON, III, UNOCAL CORPORATION, UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, and PURE RESOURCES, INC., Defendants Below, Appellees. No. 557, 2002 In the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. Submitted: October 9, 2002 Decided: October 10, 2002
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and STEELE, Justices.
Berger, Justice
ORDER
This 10th day of October, 2002, it appears to the Court that:
1) The plaintiffs-appellants, Cardinal Capital Management, LLC, ("Cardinal"), individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, have petitioned this Court, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 42, to appeal from an interlocutory order issued by the Court of Chancery on October 3, 2002.
2) On October 9, 2002, the Court of Chancery denied certification of Cardinal's petition to certify an interlocutory appeal to this Court.
3) Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound discretion of this Court and are granted only in extraordinary cases.
4) In the exercise of its discretion, this Court has concluded that the application for interlocutory review does not meet the requirements of Supreme Court 42(b) for the reasons stated in Vice Chancellor Strine's Order and should be refused.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the within interlocutory appeal is REFUSED.