Title: Plant et al. v. Sims et al.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 297, 2002
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: July 2, 2002

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
HAZEL D. PLANT and ARTHUR L. 
SCOTT, 
 
Defendants Below- 
Appellants 
 
v. 
 
STATE ex rel. FRANK SIMS, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee, 
 
and 
 
WAYNE A. SMITH, et al., 
 
Defendants Below- 
Appellees. 
§ 
§  No. 297, 2002 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. 02M-01-056 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: June 24, 2002 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: July 2, 2002 
 
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and HOLLAND, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 2nd day of July 2002, upon consideration of the appellants’ 
answer to the Rule to Show Cause and the appellees’ respective responses 
thereto, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The appellants, State Representatives Hazel D. Plant and Arthur 
L. Scott, filed this appeal from a Superior Court order dated April 23, 2002, 
which transferred the case to the Court of Chancery pursuant to title 10, 
 
2
section 1902 of the Delaware Code.  The Clerk of this Court issued a Rule to 
Show Cause directing the appellants to show cause why the appeal should 
not be dismissed as being interlocutory.  The appellants’ response does not 
address the interlocutory nature of the Superior Court’s order, but instead 
addresses the merits of the issues the appellants apparently wish to raise on 
appeal. 
 
(2) 
The Court has considered the matter carefully and has 
determined that this appeal must be dismissed.  The Superior Court’s order 
transferring jurisdiction to the Court of Chancery is, by its terms, 
interlocutory in nature because it is not a final ruling on the merits of the 
underlying controversy.1  This case is ongoing in the Court of Chancery.  
The Superior Court’s order, if appealable at all, is subject to the provisions 
of Supreme Court Rule 42 regarding interlocutory appeals.2  The appellants 
have made no attempt to comply with the provisions of Supreme Court Rule 
42.  Accordingly, this matter must be dismissed. 
                                                 
1 Whitney v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., Del. Supr., No. 315, 1985, Horsey, J. 
(May 29, 1986). 
2 Nicholson v. Redman, Del. Supr., No. 62, 1993, Moore, J. (Mar. 16, 1993). 
 
 
3
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that this matter is hereby 
DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ E. Norman Veasey 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice