Title: Krueck v. Bottlecaps, Inc. et al
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 431, 2002
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: October 8, 2002

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
  
STEPHANIE KRUECK, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
BOTTLECAPS INC., a Delaware 
corporation d/b/a BOTTLECAPS 
BAR & RESTAURANT and THE 
WILMINGTON PARKING 
AUTHORITY, a corporation of the 
State of Delaware, 
 
Defendants Below- 
Appellees. 
 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 431, 2002 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. 01C-12-070 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: September 20, 2002 
  Decided:   October 8, 2002 
 
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and HOLLAND, Justices 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 8th day of October 2002, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The plaintiff-appellant, Stephanie Krueck, filed an appeal from the 
Superior Court’s June 28, 2002 order granting summary judgment in favor of 
Defendant-Appellee Bottlecaps, Inc.1  Bottlecaps subsequently filed a motion to 
                                                 
1No ruling was made with respect to defendant Wilmington Parking Authority.   
 
 
-2- 
dismiss the appeal on the ground that the Superior Court’s order  was an 
interlocutory, and not a final, order.   
(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.2  The Superior Court’s June 28, 2002 order3 was not 
intended to be its final act for purposes of appeal, since the order did not dispose 
of Krueck’s claims against the Wilmington Parking Authority.4  Moreover, the 
Superior Court did not direct the entry of a final judgment upon Krueck’s claims 
against Bottlecaps in accordance with Superior Court Civil Rule 54(b). 
(3) 
An appeal from the Superior Court’s June 28, 2002 order, 
therefore, must satisfy the requirements for taking an interlocutory appeal 
                                                 
2J.I. Kislak Mortgage Corporation v. William Matthews, Builder, Inc., 303 A.2d 648, 650 
(Del. 1973). 
3Consisting of the transcript of the June 28, 2002 hearing on Bottlecaps’ motion for 
summary judgment. 
4Stroud v. Milliken Enterprises, Inc., 552 A.2d 476, 482 (Del. 1989). 
 
 
-3- 
pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 42.  Krueck has not attempted to comply with 
that Rule.  Accordingly, her appeal must be dismissed. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is DISMISSED 
pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 29(b) and 42. 
BY THE COURT: 
   s/Joseph T. Walsh 
Justice