Sheppard v. GPM Investments, LLC

6 Citing cases

  1. Pacheco v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd.

    C. A. No.: N13A-05-002(CHT) (Del. Super. Ct. Oct. 21, 2013)   Cited 2 times

    " Sheppard v. GPM Investments, LLC, 2008 WL 193317, at *2 (Del. Super. Jan. 23, 2008)(citing Meacham v. UIAB, 2002 WL 442168 (Del.Super. Mar. 21, 2002)). Cassello v. News Journal Co., 2010 WL 5825342, at *3 (Del. Super. Dec. 29, 2010) (citing Lively v. Dover Wipes Co., 2003 WL 21213415, at *1 (Del.Super.)).

  2. Logan v. Unemp. Insu. Appeal Bd.

    C.A. No. 09A-06-003-JTV (Del. Super. Ct. Feb. 25, 2010)

    "Lively v. Dover Wiper Co., 2003 WL 21213415, at *1 (Del. Super.); Sheppard v. GPM Investments, LLC., 2008 WL 193317, at *3 (Del. Super.).Lively, 2003 WL 21213415, at *1.

  3. Isijola v. Bissell Hospital

    C.A. No. 09A-02-014 (CHT) (Del. Super. Ct. Feb. 15, 2010)

    However, as the Delaware Supreme Court has noted those such situations are extremely rare. For example, when an appeal is belatedly filed due to the claimant's unintentional error or accidental action, and not due to an administrative error, § 3318(b) will jurisdictionally bar the claim from further appellate consideration.See Sheppard v. GPM Investments, LLC, 2008 WL 193317, at *2 (Del. Super. Jan. 23, 2008).See Funk v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., 591 A.2d 222 (Del. 1991).

  4. Cooper v. Unemp. Ins.

    C. A. No. 09A-06-005 (CHT) (Del. Super. Ct. Feb. 9, 2010)

    However, as the Delaware Supreme Court has noted those such situations "have been few and far between."See Sheppard v. GPM Investments, LLC, 2008 WL 193317, at *2 (Del. Super. Jan. 23, 2008).See Funk, 591 A.2d 222 (Del. 1991).

  5. Ramey v. Wal-Mart Stores East

    C.A. No. 08A-09-001 RRC (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 13, 2009)   Cited 2 times

    In fact, Appellant admits that her appeal was untimely but not because of any action by the Department of Labor. While the Court recognizes and is not unsympathetic to Appellant's possible inability to retain counsel to represent her during the unemployment insurance proceedings, Appellant bears the responsibility to follow conspicuous deadlines for filing appeals.See, e.g., Sheppard v. GPM Investments, LLC, 2008 WL 193317, at *2 (Del. Super. Jan. 23, 2008) (holding that where the appeal to the UIAB is untimely due to Claimant's "inadvertent, unintentional, or accidental actions" the decision of the Referee becomes final, and the claim is jurisdictionally barred by 19 Del. C. § 3318(b) from further appeals); see also Stacey v. People's Settlement, 2009 WL 891054 (Del. Super. Mar. 31, 2009) (affirming the Board after it denied an appeal as untimely because the Claimant neglected her responsibility to read the Notice of Determination and make herself aware of the filing deadline); ( Cooke v. Boscovs, 2008 WL 1726053 (Del. Super. Mar. 24, 2008) (holding that a claimant has the responsibility to check the location where he regularly receives mail, and that his failure to do so did not merit a waiver of the timeliness requirements). 9) There is substantial evidence in the record demonstrating that the Referee's decision was mailed to Appellant, that the Referee's decision conspicuously indicated that the deadline for filing an appeal to the

  6. Hefley v. Unemp. Ins. Appeals Bd.

    C.A. No. 09A-01-002 WLW (Del. Super. Ct. Jul. 17, 2009)   Cited 3 times

    Cases where the Board has exercised its power under § 3320 to hear an untimely appeal have been few and far between.Sheppard v. GPM Investments, LLC, 2008 WL 193317, at *2 (Del. Super. Jan. 23, 2008) (citing Funk, 591 A.2d at 225) (holding that the Board did not abuse its discretion in refusing to exercise its power under 19 Del. C. § 3320 when the appeal was untimely because of the claimant's problems receiving his mail in a timely manner for which the Department of Labor had no responsibility)).Funk, 591 A.2d at 225.