Title: Siddles Directional v. Verizon

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
SIDDLES DIRECTIONAL 
DRILLING, INC., 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
VERIZON DELAWARE, INC., 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee, 
 
and 
 
UTILIQUEST, LLC, 
 
Third-Party Defendant, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 35, 2006 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. 04C-10-244 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: February 16, 2006 
Decided: 
March 9, 2006 
 
Before HOLLAND, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 9th day of March 2006, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The 
defendant-appellant, 
Siddles 
Directional 
Drilling, 
Inc. 
(“Siddles”), has petitioned this Court, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 42, to 
accept an appeal from an interlocutory ruling of the Superior Court, entered 
 
 
-2-
December 20, 2005, denying Siddles’ motion for summary judgment on the ground 
that the statute of limitations had expired. 
(2) 
Siddles filed its application for certification to take an interlocutory 
appeal in the Superior Court on January 17, 2006.  The Superior Court denied the 
certification application on February 7, 2006. 
(3) 
Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound 
discretion of this Court.  In the exercise of its discretion, this Court has concluded 
that the application for interlocutory review does not meet the requirements of 
Supreme Court Rule 42(b) and should be refused. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the within 
interlocutory appeal be REFUSED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs 
Justice