Case Title: Freeman v. Balderson

Citation: 

Docket Number: 651, 2007

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2007-12-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
LOUIS J. FREEMAN and  
 
§  
GANNETT COMPANY, INC.,  
§   No. 651, 2007 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§  
 
Defendants Below, 
 
 
§  
 
Appellants,  
 
 
§  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§  
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§  
LYNNE G. BALDERSON and  
§  
RICHARD C. BALDERSON,  
§  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§  
 
Plaintiffs Below,  
 
§  
 
Appellees.  
 
 
§  
 
 
 
 
 
    Submitted:  December 18, 2007 
 
 
 
 
       Decided:  December 21, 2007 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 21st day of December 2007, it appears to the Court that: 
 
1) 
The appellants have filed an application for this Court to accept 
an appeal for interlocutory review.   
 
2) 
On May 9, 2007, the Superior Court entered an Order and 
Opinion granting the Plaintiffs’ Motion for a New Trial and denying the 
Defendants’ Motion for Costs.  The Superior Court ruled that there was no 
evidence to suggest that the Plaintiff suddenly left the curb and walked into 
the path of the Defendants’ vehicle and therefore, the jury instruction 
regarding the pedestrian’s duty was improperly given.  The Defendants filed 
 
2
a Motion for Reargument regarding the Motion for Costs and the Motion for 
a New Trial.  The Defendants’ Motion for Reargument was denied by Order 
of the Superior Court on November 27, 2007. 
 
3) 
The Superior Court declined to certify this proceeding for 
interlocutory review.  This Court has considered the decisions of the 
Superior Court to grant a new trial, deny reargument and declining to certify 
the matter for interlocutory review, as well as the submissions to this Court 
by the parties.   
 
3) 
Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the 
sound discretion of this Court and are accepted only in extraordinary 
circumstances.  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 and should be refused.   
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the 
application for interlocutory review in this matter be, and the same is hereby, 
REFUSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice