Title: Mangrum v. Warren et al.

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
VIRGIL N. MANGRUM,
§
§
Nos. 242, 2002 and 243, 2002
Plaintiff Below,
§
Appellant,
§
Court Below—Superior Court
§
of the State of Delaware in
v.
§
and for New Castle County.
§
LEWIS WARREN, J. 
§
C.A. No. 00C-07-012
LLEWELLYN BELL MEMORIAL §
CHAPEL and STATE FARM
§
INSURANCE COMPANY,
§
§
Defendants Below,
§
Appellees.
§
Submitted: May 31, 2002
Decided:
June 10, 2002
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and STEELE, Justices.
O R D E R
This tenth day of June 2002, it appears to the Court that:
(1)
On April 30, 2002, the appellant, Virgil M. Mangrum, filed a
notice of interlocutory appeal (case No. 242, 2002) and a petition for an
extraordinary writ of mandamus (case No. 243, 2002).  By Order dated
May 24, 2002, the Court dismissed both cases.  The Court’s May 24
dismissal Order was initially mailed to Mangrum at an incorrect address.
According to Mangrum, he received the dismissal Order on May 29, 2002,
after the Court resent the Order to him at his correct address.
(2)
On May 28, 2002, prior to his receipt of the May 24 dismissal
Order, Mangrum filed documents entitled “Motion to Conform” (in case
No. 242, 2002) and “Notice” and “Complaint for Extraordinary Writ” (in
case No. 243, 2002) (collectively “documents”).  Mangrum’s documents
advance legal arguments on the merit of his respective cases.  In view of
the Court’s Order of dismissal dated May 24, 2002, the Court will take no
action with respect to Mangrum’s documents, as the legal arguments
advanced in those documents are now moot.
(3)
On May 31, 2002, Mangrum filed a document entitled
“Motion for Clarification.”  Mangrum’s motion disputes the dismissal of
his cases.  The Court has deemed Mangrum’s “Motion for Clarification”
to be a motion for reargument pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 18.
Having carefully considered the motion for reargument, it appears to the
Court that the motion for reargument is without merit and should be
denied.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Mangrum’s “Motion
to Conform,” “Notice,” and “Complaint for Extraordinary Writ” are
DENIED as moot.  Mangrum’s motion for reargument is DENIED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Randy J. Holland
Justice