Case Title: Key Properties Group v. City of Milford

Citation: 

Docket Number: 41, 2009

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2009-04-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
KEY PROPERTIES GROUP, LLC, 
 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
CITY OF MILFORD, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 41, 2009 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  C.A. No. 07C-07-023 
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: April 13, 2009 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: April 21, 2009 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, BERGER, and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 21st day of April 2009, upon consideration of the appellee’s 
motion to dismiss this appeal and its motion to strike portions of the opening 
brief, as well as the appellant’s responses thereto and the appellant’s motion 
for stay of the Superior Court’s judgment pending appeal, it appears to the 
Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Key Properties Group, LLC (Key), filed this 
appeal from a decision of the Superior Court, dated December 31, 2008, 
which denied Key’s motion to dismiss the City of Milford’s (Milford) 
condemnation action and granted Milford’s request for an order of 
 
2
possession.  Milford has filed a motion to dismiss Key’s appeal on the 
ground that the appeal was not taken from a final order.  We agree. 
(2) 
Section 6112 of Title 10 of the Delaware Code provides that 
there “shall be a right of review in every condemnation cause from the final 
confirmed award of the Superior Court to the Supreme Court as in the 
manner provided for review of any other final civil judgment of the Superior 
Court.”1  At the time Key filed its notice of appeal, the Superior Court had 
not entered a final confirmed award.  Accordingly, the appeal was 
interlocutory at the time it was filed.   
(3) 
This Court lacks jurisdiction to consider an interlocutory appeal 
in a civil case, absent compliance with the procedures of Supreme Court 
Rule 42.2  Key acknowledges that there was no attempt to comply with Rule 
42 in this case.  Accordingly, we have no jurisdiction to allow this appeal, as 
Key requests, in the absence of compliance with Rule 42. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the within appeal is 
hereby DISMISSED. The motion to strike and motion to stay are moot. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                 
1 10 Del. C. § 6112 (1999) (emphasis added). 
2 Julian v. State, 440 A.2d 990, 991 (Del. 1982).