Case Title: Hall v. Jewell

Citation: 

Docket Number: 75, 2024

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2024-03-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DECLAN HALL,1 
 
Petitioner Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
EMMA JEWELL, 
 
Respondent Below, 
Appellee. 
 
§ 
§  No. 75, 2024 
§   
§  Court Below: Family Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  File No. CK22-01278 
§  Petition Nos. 22-22242 
§                        23-00217 
§                         
§                         
Submitted: February 28, 2024 
Decided: 
March 6, 2024 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and GRIFFITHS, Justices. 
 
 
ORDER 
 
(1) 
On February 22, 2024, the appellant filed a notice of appeal from an 
order of the Family Court, dated and docketed on November 16, 2023, deciding a 
petition for custody and a petition for a rule to show cause.  Under Supreme Court 
Rules 6 and 11, a timely notice of appeal should have been filed, at the latest, by 
December 18, 2023.2  The Senior Court Clerk of this Court issued a notice directing 
the appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed as untimely 
 
1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d). 
2 See DEL. SUPR. CT. R. 6(a)(i) (providing that a notice of appeal in a civil case shall be filed 
“[w]ithin 30 days after entry upon the docket of a judgment, order or decree from which the appeal 
is taken”); id. R. 11 (a) (providing that if a filing deadline falls on a weekend or holiday the period 
for filing “shall run until the end of the next day on which the office of the Clerk is open”). 
 
2
filed.  In response to the notice, the appellant argues the merits of the appeal but does 
not address the untimeliness of the appeal. 
(2) 
Time is a jurisdictional requirement.3  A notice of appeal must be 
received by the Office of the Clerk of this Court within the applicable time period in 
order to be effective.4  An appellant’s status as a self-represented litigant does not 
excuse a failure to comply strictly with the jurisdictional requirements.5  Unless an 
appellant can demonstrate that the failure to file a timely notice of appeal is 
attributable to court-related personnel, an untimely appeal cannot be considered.6 
(3) 
The appellant has not demonstrated that his failure to file a timely 
notice of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel.  The appeal must therefore 
be dismissed. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), 
that the appeal is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
       Chief Justice 
 
3 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 
4 DEL. SUPR. CT. R. 10(a). 
5 Rogers v. Morgan, 2019 WL 168667 (Del. Jan. 10, 2019); Taylor v. Powell, 2015 WL 2452916 
(Del. May 20, 2015). 
6 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979).