Title: Hockensmith v. UIAB

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DANA HOCKENSMITH, 
 
§  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 591, 2014 
 
Appellant Below,  
 
§ 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below:  Superior Court   
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware in and  
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
for Kent County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE 
§ 
C.A. No. 14A-03-006 
APPEAL BOARD, 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Appellee Below,  
 
§ 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Submitted: November 12, 2014 
Decided: 
December 11, 2014 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice, RIDGELY and VALIHURA, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 11th day of December 2014, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On October 20, 2014, the appellant, Dana Hockensmith, filed a 
notice of appeal from a Superior Court order dated and docketed on 
September 17, 2014, in an appeal from a decision of the Unemployment 
Insurance Appeal Board.  On its face, the notice of appeal was untimely 
filed.  Under title 10, section 148 of the Delaware Code and Supreme Court 
Rule 6(a)(i), the notice of appeal should have been filed on or before 
2 
 
October 17, 2014.1  To be effective, a notice of appeal must be received by 
the Office of the Clerk of this Court within thirty days after entry upon the 
docket of the order from which the appeal is taken.2 
(2) 
On October 21, 2014, the Clerk issued a notice under Supreme 
Court Rule 29(b), directing Hockensmith to show cause why the appeal 
should not be dismissed as untimely filed.  In her response to the notice, 
Hockensmith asserts that the appeal should not be dismissed because she 
filed the notice of appeal on October 20, 2014, within thirty days of 
September 20, 2014, the date she received the September 17, 2014 order. 
(3) 
“[T]he appellate jurisdiction of this [C]ourt rests wholly upon 
the perfecting of an appeal within the period of limitations fixed by law.”3    
The jurisdictional defect created by the untimely filing of an appeal cannot 
be excused unless the appellant can demonstrate that the delay in filing the 
appeal is attributable to court-related personnel.4 
                                          
 
1 See 10 Del. C. § 148 (“No appeal from a final judgment of the Superior Court in a civil 
action shall be received or entertained in the Supreme Court unless the . . . notice of 
appeal is duly filed in the office of the Clerk thereof within 30 days after the date of the 
judgment or decree.”); Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(i) (providing that an appeal in a civil case 
must be filed within thirty days “after entry upon the docket of the judgment, order or 
decree from which the appeal is taken”). 
2 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
3 Fisher v. Biggs, 284 A.2d 117, 118 (Del. 1971). 
4 McMillan v. State, 2013 WL 5974110 (Del. Nov. 7, 2013) (citing Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 
362, 363 (Del. 1979)). 
3 
 
(4) 
In this case, Hockensmith does not contend, and the record does 
not reflect, that her failure to timely file the appeal is attributable to court-
related personnel.  The case does not fall within the exception to the general 
rule that mandates the timely filing of a notice of appeal. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rules 
6 and 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice