Title: Bailey v. Jackson

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
MICHAEL A. BAILEY,1 
 
Petitioner Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
JACKIE J. JACKSON, 
 
Respondent Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 333, 2016 
§ 
§  Court Below—Family Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  File No. CN08-05031 
§  Petition Nos. 13-38057, 14-05488,   
§  and 14-16798 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: July 20, 2016 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
August 9, 2016 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND and SEITZ, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
This 9th day of August 2016, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
We have before us an application for interlocutory review of a Family 
Court order, dated May 10, 2016, denying Michael A. Bailey’s motion for 
discovery of an ex parte communication in visitation, rule to show cause, and 
custody proceedings.  In a well-reasoned order dated June 30, 2016 and filed with 
this Court on July 20, 2016, the Family Court carefully considered the Rule 42(b) 
criteria and explained why interlocutory review was not warranted.    
                                                 
1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d). 
2 
 
(2) 
Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound 
discretion of this Court.  In the exercise of its discretion, the Court has concluded, 
for the reasons stated by the Family Court, that the application for interlocutory 
review does not meet the requirements of Rule 42 and should be refused.   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the interlocutory appeal is 
REFUSED.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT:  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice