Case Title: Ward v. Delaware State Police

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2, 2022

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2022-02-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
CARLET DEETTA WARD, 
 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
DELAWARE STATE POLICE, 
DELAWARE VICTIM’S 
COMPENSATION 
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, 
 
Defendants Below, 
Appellees. 
§ 
§  No. 2, 2022 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below–Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§   
§  C.A. No. K21C-07-017 
§                     
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: January 21, 2022 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
February 3, 2022 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, 
Justices. 
 
ORDER 
After careful consideration of the notice to show cause and the appellant’s 
response, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The plaintiff below/appellant, Carlet DeEtta Ward, filed this appeal 
from the Superior Court’s December 3, 2021 order denying her motion to quash the 
motion to dismiss filed by the defendants below/appellees.  The Superior Court 
docket reflects that the Superior Court has not yet ruled on the appellees’ motion to 
dismiss.  On January 10, 2022, the Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Ward 
2 
 
to show cause why her appeal should not be dismissed for her failure to comply with 
Supreme Court Rule 42 in taking an appeal from an interlocutory order.   
(2) 
Ward has responded to the notice to show cause and argues that the 
Superior Court should have granted her motion for a default judgment and that the 
Superior Court should not consider the merits of the appellees’ motion to dismiss.  
“An order is deemed final when the trial court has declared its intention that the order 
is the court’s final act in a case.”1  Here, the appellees’ motion to dismiss remains 
pending.  It is clear, therefore, that the Superior Court did not intend for its ruling on 
Ward’s motion to quash to be its final act in this case. 
(3) 
Absent compliance with Rule 42, the appellate jurisdiction of this Court 
is limited to the review of final court orders.2  Ward’s failure to comply with Rule 
42 leaves this Court without jurisdiction to hear her interlocutory appeal.  Ward’s 
filing fee for any future appeal from the Superior Court’s final judgment shall be 
waived. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, under Supreme Court 
Rule 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
          
        Chief Justice 
 
1 Pollard v. The Placers, Inc., 692 A.2d 879, 880 (Del. 1997). 
2 Julian v. State, 440 A.2d 990, 991 (Del. 1982).