Title: Martin v. Nixon

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JAMES L. MARTIN, 
 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
DAVID H. NIXON, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 72, 2022 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below–Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§   
§  C.A. No. N17C-08-152 
§                     
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: March 17, 2022 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
March 29, 2022 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; TRAYNOR and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, 
Justices. 
 
ORDER 
After careful consideration of the notice to show cause and the appellant’s 
response, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The plaintiff below/appellant, James Martin, filed this appeal from a 
Superior Court jury verdict awarding Martin damages in a personal-injury action.  
The Superior Court docket reflects that Martin filed several motions following the 
jury verdict, including a “R[ule] 50 Renewal of Motion for Judgment as a Matter of 
Law after Verdict, with R[ule] 59 Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment, or Motion 
for a New Trial.”  On March 4, 2022, the Chief Deputy Clerk issued a notice 
directing Martin to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed for his failure 
2 
 
to comply with Supreme Court Rule 42 when taking an appeal from an apparent 
interlocutory order.   
(2) 
Martin has responded to the notice to show cause and acknowledges 
that “outcome-determinative” motions remain pending in the Superior Court.  “An 
order is deemed final when the trial court has declared its intention that the order is 
the court’s final act in a case.”1  Here, several motions, including the aforementioned 
motion for judgment as a matter of law following trial, remain unsettled.  It is clear, 
therefore, that Martin’s appeal is interlocutory. 
(3) 
Absent compliance with Rule 42, the appellate jurisdiction of this Court 
is limited to the review of final court orders.2  Martin’s failure to comply with Rule 
42 leaves this Court without jurisdiction to hear his interlocutory appeal.  Martin’s 
filing fee for any future appeal from the Superior Court’s final judgment shall be 
waived. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, under Supreme Court 
Rule 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Tamika R. Montgomery-Reeves 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
1 Pollard v. The Placers, Inc., 692 A.2d 879, 880 (Del. 1997). 
2 Julian v. State, 440 A.2d 990, 991 (Del. 1982).