Case Title: Gordon v. Gordon

Citation: 

Docket Number: 46, 2005

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2005-03-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
The Court has sua sponte assigned pseudonyms to the parties.  Supr. Ct. R. 7(d).
1
   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
TIMOTHY M. GORDON,               
§
     
§
          
§
   No. 46, 2005
Petitioner Below-
§
Appellant, 
§
   Court Below---Family Court
v.
§
   in and for New Castle County 
ELLEN M. GORDON, 
§
                      
    
    
§
Respondent Below-
§
Appellee.
§
   of the State of Delaware,
§
   File No. CN02-06300
Submitted: February 22, 2005 
   Decided: March 8, 2005   
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices
O R D E R1
This 8  day of March 2005, it appears to the Court that:
th
(1)
The petitioner-appellant, Timothy M. Gordon, has petitioned this
Court, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 42, to appeal from the Family Court’s
interlocutory order dated November 17, 2004, which affirmed a commissioner’s
order denying appellant’s motion for interim visitation and the Family Court’s
January 4, 2005 order denying reargument.  
(2)
On February 9, 2005, the Family Court denied appellant’s motion to
certify an interlocutory appeal to this Court pursuant to Rule 42.
 Supr. Ct. R. 42(b).
2
 The appellant’s February 2, 2005 motion for expedited stay and injunction in this matter also is
3
hereby denied.
-2-
(3)
Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound
discretion of this Court and are granted only in exceptional circumstances.   We
2
have examined the Family Court’s November 17, 2004 and January 4, 2005 orders
according to the criteria set forth in Rule 42.  In the exercise of its discretion, this
Court has concluded that exceptional circumstances do not exist in this case to
merit interlocutory review of the orders of the Family Court.  
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the within interlocutory appeal
is REFUSED.3
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Carolyn Berger
Justice