Title: Sunderland et al v. Raider

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
CHARLES T. SUNDERLAND, 
KENT W. SUNDERLAND, JAMES 
P. SUNDERLAND, ROBERT 
SUNDERLAND, GEORGE M. 
WELLS, JOHN H. ROSS III, 
CHARLES T. WIEDENHOFT, 
CHARLES V. LARSON, JOHN W. 
WEBSTER, and ASH GROVE 
CEMENT CO., 
 
Defendants Below- 
Appellants, 
 
v. 
 
DANIEL F. RAIDER, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 593, 2002 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Court of Chancery 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. 19357 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: October 24, 2002 
  Decided: November 4, 2002 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and STEELE, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 4th day of November 2002, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
Defendant Ash Grove Cement Company (“Ash Grove”) has 
petitioned this Court, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 42, to appeal from an 
interlocutory ruling of the Court of Chancery dated September 24, 2002.  The 
Court of Chancery’s ruling denied defendants’ motion to characterize the action 
below as a derivative action. 
 
 
-2- 
(2) 
On October 21, 2002, the Court of Chancery denied Ash Grove’s 
application to certify an interlocutory appeal to this Court. 
(3) 
Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound 
discretion of this Court and are granted only in extraordinary cases. 
(4) 
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 is REFUSED.   
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
Justice