From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lutz v. Lancaster Pike Stuart

Supreme Court of Delaware
Mar 10, 2009
3 A.3d 1098 (Del. 2009)

Opinion

No. 101, 2009.

Submitted: February 27, 2009.

Decided: March 10, 2009.

Court Below — Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County, C.A. No. 07C-07-041.

Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices.


ORDER


This 10th day of March 2009, it appears to the Court that: (1) The plaintiff-appellant, Luraleen (Lori) Lutz, has petitioned this Court, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 42 ("Rule 42"), to appeal from the Superior Court's interlocutory order of January 30, 2009, which granted the defendants-appellees' motion to vacate default judgments. By order dated February 26, 2009, the Superior Court denied Lutz' application for certification on the ground that the criteria of Rule 42 had not been met.

(2) Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound discretion of this Court and are granted only in exceptional circumstances. The Court has examined the Superior Court's January 30, 2009 order according to the criteria set forth in Rule 42. In the exercise of its discretion, the Court has concluded that exceptional circumstances such as would merit interlocutory review of the Superior Court's order do not exist in this case.

Lutz v. Lancaster Pike Stuart, LLC, 2009 WL 537057 (Del.Super.).

Del. Supr. Ct. R. 42(b), (d)(v).

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the interlocutory appeal is REFUSED.


Summaries of

Lutz v. Lancaster Pike Stuart

Supreme Court of Delaware
Mar 10, 2009
3 A.3d 1098 (Del. 2009)
Case details for

Lutz v. Lancaster Pike Stuart

Case Details

Full title:LURALEEN (LORI) LUTZ, Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. LANCASTER PIKE…

Court:Supreme Court of Delaware

Date published: Mar 10, 2009

Citations

3 A.3d 1098 (Del. 2009)

Citing Cases

Norris v. Crummey

--The doctrine is well established that any change in the contract, however immaterial, and even although it…

Harris v. Citizens Bank, Etc., Co.

" These facts appear in Stuart v. Lancaster, 84 Va. 772, 6 S.E. 139. A note of the Greenbrier White Sulphur…