Case Title: Rabspan, Inc. v. The Ryland Group, Inc.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 418,2004, 426,2004, 427,2004, 436,2004

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2004-11-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
RABSPAN, INC., STATEWIDE 
PLUMBING, SANTOS 
CARPENTRY CO., INC., and 
KAPPLER CONTRUCTION CO., 
 
Defendants Below- 
Appellants, 
 
v. 
 
THE RYLAND GROUP, INC., 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  Nos.  418, 2004; 426, 2004;  
§  427, 2004; and 436, 2004 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. 00C-09-056 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: October 26, 2004 
  Decided: November 8, 2004 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 8th day of November 2004, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The defendants-appellants each have petitioned this Court, pursuant 
to Supreme Court Rule 42, to appeal from interlocutory orders of the Superior 
Court dated August 31, 2004 and September 9, 2004.  The August 31, 2004 
order granted, in part, the plaintiff-appellee’s motion for reargument of the 
Superior Court’s grant of summary judgment to defendants on plaintiff’s claim 
for contribution.  The September 9, 2004 order denied the defendants’ motion 
for reargument on the Superior Court’s grant of reargument.  
 
 
-2-
(2) 
On October 15, 2004, as modified by its October 20, 2004 order, 
the Superior Court denied the defendants’ respective applications to certify 
interlocutory appeals to this Court.  The Superior Court held that its denial of 
summary judgment to defendants on plaintiff’s claim for contribution did not 
meet the criteria for interlocutory review. 
(3) 
Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound 
discretion of this Court and are granted only in extraordinary cases. 
(4) 
In the exercise of its discretion, this Court has concluded that the 
applications for interlocutory review do not meet the requirements of Supreme 
Court Rule 42(b) and should be refused. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the within 
interlocutory appeals are REFUSED.   
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
Justice