Title: Duffy v. Kent County Levy Court
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 375, 2009
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: July 1, 2009

1 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
MICHAEL A. DUFFY,   
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
KENT COUNTY LEVY COURT,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 375, 2009 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below-Court of Chancery 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  C.A. No. 4281  
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: July 1, 2009 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: July 1, 2009 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 1st day of July 2009, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
On June 29, 2009, the Court received the appellant’s notice of appeal 
from the Court of Chancery’s June 8, 2009 bench ruling and June 22, 2009 
implementing order, which denied his motion for a preliminary injunction and 
temporary relief in connection with the proposed demolition of two structures on 
his property in Kitts Hummock, Delaware.1  
                                                 
1 Also on June 29, 2009, the appellant filed a motion for emergency relief, which requested this 
Court to stay the Court of Chancery’s June 22, 2009 order requiring him to post bond pending 
his appeal in this Court. 
 
 
2 
 
(2) 
Absent compliance with Supreme Court Rule 42, the jurisdiction of 
this Court is limited to the review of final judgments of trial courts.2  The test for 
whether an order is final and, therefore, ripe for appeal is whether the trial court 
has clearly declared its intention that the order be the court’s “final act” in a case.3   
 
(3) 
The order appealed from is plainly interlocutory.  There is no 
evidence that the Court of Chancery intended its June 8, 2009 bench ruling or its 
June 22, 2009 implementing order to constitute its “final act” in this matter.  In 
fact, the Court of Chancery explicitly states that those orders are interlocutory in 
another June 22, 2009 order denying what it deemed to be the appellant’s 
application for an order certifying his interlocutory appeal.  In the absence of any 
attempt by the appellant to comply with Supreme Court Rule 42, the instant appeal 
must be dismissed.  
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rules 29(b) and 42, the within interlocutory appeal is DISMISSED.4   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
                                                 
2 Julian v. State, 440 A.2d 990, 991 (Del. 1982). 
3 J.I. Kislak Mortgage Corp. of Del. v. William Matthews, Builder, Inc., 303 A.2d 648, 650 (Del. 
1973). 
4 Accordingly, the motion for emergency relief is stricken.  Supr. Ct. R. 34.