From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Vick v. Khan

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Jul 17, 2019
213 A.3d 592 (Del. 2019)

Summary

stating that application for certification filed approximately one month after Superior Court's interlocutory decision was untimely under Rule 42(c); appellants' request for an extension because they were out of state at the time of the Superior Court's decision, made at the same time as the untimely filing of the application, did not establish good cause for the extension

Summary of this case from Deutsche Bank AG v. Sebastian Holdings, Inc.

Opinion

No. 255, 2019

07-17-2019

Stacia VICK and Chadwick Vick, Plaintiffs Below, Appellants, v. Dr. Nasreen KHAN, Khan Obstetrics and Gynecology Associates, P.A., Bayhealth Inc., Bayhealth Medical Center, and Kent General Hospital, Defendants Below, Appellees.


REFUSED.


Summaries of

Vick v. Khan

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Jul 17, 2019
213 A.3d 592 (Del. 2019)

stating that application for certification filed approximately one month after Superior Court's interlocutory decision was untimely under Rule 42(c); appellants' request for an extension because they were out of state at the time of the Superior Court's decision, made at the same time as the untimely filing of the application, did not establish good cause for the extension

Summary of this case from Deutsche Bank AG v. Sebastian Holdings, Inc.
Case details for

Vick v. Khan

Case Details

Full title:STACIA VICK and CHADWICK VICK, Plaintiffs Below, Appellants, v. DR…

Court:SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

Date published: Jul 17, 2019

Citations

213 A.3d 592 (Del. 2019)

Citing Cases

Deutsche Bank AG v. Sebastian Holdings, Inc.

See DEL. SUPR. CT. R. 42(d)(i) (“The notice of appeal may be filed at any time after the filing of the…