Title: Delmarva Warehouse, Inc. v. Yoder
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 200, 2001
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: June 25, 2001

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
DELMARVA WAREHOUSE, INC.,
Defendant Below-
Appellant,
v.
PHINEAS YODER,
Plaintiff Below-
Appellee.
§
§  No. 200, 2001
§
§
§
§  Court Below—Superior Court
§  of the State of Delaware,
§  in and for New Castle County
§  C.A. No. 99C-10-016
§
§
Submitted: June 18, 2001
  Decided:
June  25, 2001
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH, and HOLLAND, Justices.
O R D E R
This 25th day of June 2001, upon consideration of the appellee’s motion to
dismiss and the appellant's response thereto, it appears to the Court that:
(1)
The appellant, Delmarva Warehouse, Inc., filed this appeal from an
opinion of the Superior Court granting the appellee’s motion for summary judgment.
 The Superior Court’s opinion directed the parties to confer and to submit a proposed
form of order implementing the substance of the court’s opinion.  The parties
submitted a proposed form of order as directed, but to date, no final order has been
docketed in the case.
-2-
(2)
The appellee, Phineas Yoder, has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal on
the ground that the Superior Court’s summary judgment opinion is interlocutory and
that Delmarva has not complied with Supreme Court Rule 42, which governs appeals
from interlocutory orders.  Yoder contends that until the Superior Court dockets a
final order entering judgment in his favor, the summary judgment opinion is not final
or appealable.
(3)
Upon consideration of the parties’ positions, we find it manifest that this
appeal is interlocutory. The further action required by the Superior Court in this matter
did not involve a purely ministerial act but an exercise of discretion by the court in
fashioning an appropriate implementing order. The ruling from which the appeal is
taken is interlocutory in nature because it did not finally determine and terminate the
cause before the Superior Court. See Julian v. State, Del. Supr., 440 A.2d 990 (1982).
Furthermore, appellants have failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 42 in
seeking to appeal from an interlocutory order.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Yoder’s motion to dismiss is
granted.  This appeal is hereby DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
   s/Joseph T. Walsh
Justice