Case Title: City of Wilmington v. Brown, et al.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 371, 2007

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2007-08-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
CITY OF WILMINGTON ZONING 
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, being 
DAVID BLANKENSHIP, 
HAROLD LINDSAY and MARK 
PILNICK, 
 
Respondent Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
DAVID H. BROWN, P. JAMES 
HAHN, KATHRYN A. PINCUS and 
SUSAN W. SOLTYS, 
 
Petitioners Below- 
Appellees. 
§ 
§  No. 371, 2007 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. 06A-10-005 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: July 24, 2007 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: August 3, 2007 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 3rd day of August 2007, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The respondent-appellant, the City of Wilmington Zoning 
Board of Adjustment (the “Board”), has petitioned this Court, pursuant to 
Supreme Court Rule 42, to appeal from the Superior Court’s interlocutory 
ruling on June 26, 2007, which denied the Board’s motion to dismiss and 
granted the motion of petitioners-appellees, David H. Brown et al. 
(“Petitioners”), to amend the caption of their petition for a writ of certiorari.   
 
2
 
(2) 
On July 23, 2007, the Superior Court denied the Board’s 
application for certification of an interlocutory appeal on the grounds that its 
June 26, 2007 ruling does not determine a substantial issue and establish a 
legal right,1 and, moreover, does not conflict with other decisions of the 
Superior Court and does not represent an improper exercise of the Superior 
Court’s jurisdiction, as argued by the Board.2  
 
(3) 
Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the 
sound discretion of this Court and are granted only in exceptional 
circumstances.3  We have examined the Superior Court’s June 26, 2007 
decision according to the criteria set forth in Rule 42.  In the exercise of its 
discretion, this Court has concluded that such exceptional circumstances as 
would merit interlocutory review of the Superior Court’s decision do not 
exist in this case. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the within interlocutory 
appeal is REFUSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
 
                                                 
1 Supr. Ct. R. 42(a). 
2 Supr. Ct. R. 42(b). 
3 Id.