Case Title: Bailey v. Walker

Citation: 

Docket Number: 179, 2012, 180, 2012

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2012-05-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
WAYNE F. BAILEY, JR.,1 
 
Petitioner Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
KIM WALKER,  
 
                     Respondent Below, 
          Appellee. 
____________________________ 
WAYNE F. BAILEY, JR.,  
 
                     Petitioner Below, 
                     Appellant, 
 
           v. 
 
KIM WALKER, 
 
                    Respondent Below, 
                    Appellee. 
§ 
§  Nos. 179/180, 2012 
§          Consolidated 
§ 
§  Court Below—Family Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, in and 
§  for Sussex County 
§  File No. CS04-02974 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
§ 
§   
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Family Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, in and 
§  for Sussex County 
§  File No. CS04-02974 
§ 
§   
§   
 
 
                                        Submitted:  April 27, 2012 
 
Decided:   May 1, 2012 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 1st day of May 2012, it appears to the Court that: 
                                                 
1 The Court sua sponte assigned pseudonyms to the parties in both appeals by Orders 
dated April 5, 2012.  Supr. Ct. R. 7(d). 
 
2
 
(1) The petitioner-appellant, Wayne F. Bailey, Jr. (the “appellant”), 
has petitioned this Court, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 42, to accept an 
appeal from three interlocutory orders of the Family Court dated March 28, 
2012—specifically, the order granting emergency interim relief, and the 
orders denying the motions to relinquish jurisdiction and for a continuance.   
 
(2) The appellant filed his application for certification to take an 
interlocutory appeal in the Family Court on or about April 4, 2012.  On 
April 18, 2012, the Family Court denied the application for certification on 
the ground that the requirements of Supreme Court Rule 42 had not been 
met. 
 
(3) Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound 
discretion of this Court.  In the exercise of its discretion, the Court has 
concluded that the appellant’s application for interlocutory review fails to 
meet the requirements of Supreme Court Rule 42 and, therefore, should be 
refused. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the interlocutory appeal 
is REFUSED.2 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
         Justice   
                                                 
2 The appellant’s request to stay the Family Court orders is hereby denied as moot.