Case Title: Ingram v. Messina, Mel

Citation: 

Docket Number: 466, 2005

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2005-11-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
WILLIAM P. INGRAM and 
MARGARGET ANNE INGRAM, 
Plaintiffs Below- 
Appellants, 
v. 
MESSINA MEL, INC., a Delaware 
corporation, 
Defendant Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 466, 2005 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Kent County 
§  C.A. No. 1618-K  
§   
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: October 31, 2005 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: November 22, 2005 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 22nd day of November 2005, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On September 30, 2005, the appellants, William P. Ingram and 
Margaret Anne Ingram (“the Ingrams”), filed a notice of appeal from an 
order of the Court of Chancery, dated September 26, 2005, denying their 
application for a temporary restraining order. 
(2) 
On October 14, 2005, the Clerk of the Court issued to the 
Ingrams a notice to show cause why the case should not be dismissed, 
pursuant to Rule 29(b), for their failure to comply with Rule 42 when taking 
an appeal from an apparent interlocutory order. 
 
(3) 
On October 31, 2005, the Ingrams filed a Response to the 
Notice to Show Cause along with an Amended Notice of Appeal from 
Interlocutory Order.  In their response, the Ingrams state their belief that the 
appeal meets the criteria for acceptance by this Court under Rule 42(b)(V). 
 
(4) 
Supreme Court Rule 42 sets forth the requirements for filing an 
interlocutory appeal.  The Ingrams have not complied with those 
requirements.  Absent compliance with Rule 42, the jurisdiction of this 
Court is limited to the review of final judgments of trial courts.1  An order is 
deemed final if the trial court has clearly declared its intention that the order 
be the court’s “final act” in the case.2   The Court of Chancery has not issued 
a final judgment in this case.  
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the appeal is 
DISMISSED.  
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
Chief Justice 
                                                 
1   Julian v. State, 440 A.2d 990, 991 (Del. 1982). 
2  J.I. Kislak Mortgage Corp. v. William Matthews, Builder, Inc., 303 A.2d 648, 
650 (Del. 1973).