Case Title: Rev. Tice, et al. v. The Estate of Nicole Bennett, et al.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 565, 2013

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2013-10-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
REV. DANNY TICE, Individually 
§ 
and as Pastor of BAY SHORE  
§ 
No. 565, 2013 
COMMUNITY CHURCH, BAY 
§  
SHORE COMMUNITY CHURCH, § 
Court Below–Superior Court of 
INC., a Delaware Corporation,  
§ 
the State of Delaware in and for 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
New Castle County 
 
 
 
Defendants Below, 
 
 
§ 
 
Appellants,  
 
 
§ 
C.A. No. N13C-04-194 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
The Estate of NICOLE BENNETT, 
§ 
 
KEVIN BENNETT, Individually  
§ 
  
and as Administrator for the Estate, 
§ 
and as next friend and Guardian ad 
§ 
 
Litem for LAUREN BENNETT, 
§ 
EMILY BENNETT, and ALLIE 
§ 
BENNETT, minors, 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
Plaintiffs Below,  
 
§ 
Appellees.  
 
 
§ 
 
Submitted: October 17, 2013  
Decided: 
October 24, 2013 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 24th day of October 2013, upon consideration of the notice of 
appeal from interlocutory order, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On October 17, 2013, the defendants/appellants, Rev. Danny 
Tice of Bay Shore Community Church, and Bay Shore Community Church, 
Inc. (hereinafter “Defendants”), petitioned this Court pursuant to Supreme 
2 
 
Court Rule 42 to accept an interlocutory appeal from the Superior Court’s 
September 18, 2013 order that denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss and 
denied without prejudice Defendants’ motion to dismiss when considered as 
a motion for summary judgment.   
(2) 
Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the 
sound discretion of this Court and are granted only in exceptional 
circumstances.  Having examined the transcript of the September 18, 2013 
hearing held on Defendants’ motion to dismiss, the Superior Court’s order of 
September 18, 2013, and the criteria set forth in Supreme Court Rule 42, we 
conclude that exceptional circumstances meriting interlocutory review do 
not exist in this case. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the 
interlocutory appeal is REFUSED.     
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice