Case Title: Henderson v. Childs, et al.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 411, 2009

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2009-08-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
FRANK B. HENDERSON, JR., 
Individually and as Executor of the 
Estate of Margie M. Henderson, 
Decedent,   
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
RASHIDA ANN CHILDS, YOUR 
KAR EXPRESS RENTALS, INC., 
and STATE FARM MUTUAL 
AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE 
COMPANY,  
 
Defendants Below- 
Appellees. 
§ 
§  No. 411, 2009 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. 06C-03-131 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: August 3, 2009 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: August 7, 2009 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 7th day of August 2009, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The plaintiff-appellant, Frank B. Henderson, Jr., Individually 
and as Executor of the Estate of Margie M. Henderson, Decedent, has 
petitioned this Court, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 42, to appeal from the 
Superior Court’s June 30, 2009 interlocutory ruling, which granted the 
 
2 
motion for summary judgment of the defendant-appellee, Your Kar Express 
Rentals, Inc.   
 
(2) 
On July 30, 2009, the Superior Court refused to certify an 
interlocutory appeal to this Court pursuant to Rule 42 because, while the 
interlocutory order determines a substantial issue, it does not satisfy any of 
the criteria contained in Rule 42(b).  Moreover, while the plaintiffs argue 
that the interlocutory order presents a question of first impression in 
Delaware, the Superior Court did no more than apply well-settled choice of 
law principles to the case.   
 
(3) 
Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the 
sound discretion of this Court and are granted only in exceptional 
circumstances.1  We have examined the Superior Court’s June 30, 2009 
decision according to the criteria set forth in Rule 42.  In the exercise of its 
discretion, this Court has concluded that such exceptional circumstances as 
would merit interlocutory review of the Superior Court’s decision do not 
exist in this case. 
 
 
                                                 
1 Supr. Ct. R. 42(b). 
 
3 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the within interlocutory 
appeal is REFUSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice