Title: Wellington Homes, Inc. et al. v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
WELLINGTON HOMES, INC., 
§   No. 463, 2003 
a Delaware corporation,   
 
§    
WELLINGTON HOMES, L.L.C., a §   Court Below – Superior Court 
Delaware limited liability corporation,§   of the State of Delaware, 
397 PROPERTIES, L.L.C.,  
 
§   in and for New Castle County 
CHRISTIANA VENTURES, INC.,  §   C.A. No. 99C-09-168 
a Delaware corporation, ALBERT  
§  
A. VIETRI, TINA MARIE VIETRI, §  
JOSEPH L. CAPANO, II, and   
§  
JOSEPH L. CAPANO,  
 
§  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§  
 
Defendants Below, 
 
 
§  
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§  
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§  
THE STATE OF DELAWARE, 
§  
ex rel., M. JANE BRADY,  
 
§  
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE 
§  
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§  
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§  
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§  
 
 
 
 
 
  Submitted:  September 21, 2003 
 
 
 
 
    Decided:  September 26, 2003 
 
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and STEELE, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 26th day of September 2003, it appears to the Court that: 
 
1) 
The defendants-appellants, Wellington Homes, Inc., Wellington 
Homes, L.L.C., Christiana Ventures, Inc., 397 Properties, L.L.C., Albert A. 
Vietri, Tina Marie Vietri, Joseph L. Capano, II and Joseph L. Capano, have 
petitioned this Court, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 42, to accept an 
appeal from an interlocutory order of the Superior Court entered on August 
20, 2003.  The Superior Court order denied appellants’ motion. 
2) 
The Superior Court, by order dated September 16, 2003, 
refused to certify the appellants’ interlocutory appeal to this Court. 
3) 
Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the 
sound discretion of this Court and are accepted only in extraordinary 
circumstances consistent with the criteria set forth in Supreme Court rule 
42(b).  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 and should be refused. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the within 
interlocutory appeal be, and the same hereby is, REFUSED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
Justice