Title: Tsipouras v. Sisk
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 343, 2010
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: November 24, 2010

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ALEXANDER C. TSIPOURAS,   
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
MARK D. SISK, ESQUIRE, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 343, 2010 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for Kent County 
§  C.A. No. 09C-05-038 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: November 4, 2010 
Decided: November 24, 2010 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and JACOBS, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 24th day of November 2010, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
On June 10, 2010, the Court received the appellant’s notice of 
appeal from the Superior Court’s order dated June 3, 2010, which granted 
summary judgment to the appellee.  On October 22, 2010, the Clerk issued a 
notice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b) directing the appellant to show 
cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with 
Rule 42 when taking an appeal from an apparent interlocutory order.   
 
(2) 
The appellant responded to the notice to show cause on 
November 4, 2010.  In the response, he requests that, if the Court determines 
 
2
that the appeal is interlocutory, he be permitted to re-file the appeal without 
paying the filing fee.   
 
(3) 
Absent compliance with Rule 42, the jurisdiction of this Court 
is limited to the review of final orders of trial courts.1  An order is deemed to 
be “final” only if the trial court has clearly declared its intention that the 
order be the court’s “final act” in the case.2   
 
(4) 
The Superior Court docket reflects that, at the time the 
appellant filed his notice of appeal, there were additional defendants 
remaining in the case.  Because not all of the parties’ claims have been 
disposed of by the Superior Court, the order being appealed from is not the 
Superior Court’s “final act.”  Accordingly, any appeal from the Superior 
Court to this Court is premature absent compliance with the requirements for 
taking an interlocutory appeal under Rule 42. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is 
DISMISSED.3  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
                                                 
1 Julian v. State, 440 A.2d 990, 991 (Del. 1982). 
2 J.I. Kislak Mortgage Corp. v. William Matthews, Builder, Inc., 303 A.2d 648, 650 (Del. 
1973). 
3 The record reflects that the appellant was granted IFP status with respect to the Supreme 
Court filing fee.  The appellant’s motion to amend the notice of appeal and the appellee’s 
motion to affirm or dismiss are hereby denied as moot.