Title: Lesko, et al. v. State of Delaware, et al.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 670, 2015
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: December 14, 2015

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
EMIL LEWIS LESKO, TRUSTEE 
§ 
UNDER REVOCABLE TRUST 
§ 
No. 670, 2015 
 
 
 
AGREEMENT OF EMIL LEWIS 
§ 
 
LESKO, DATED JUNE 4, 2003; AND  
§ 
Court Below–Superior Court of 
7835.1765 SQUARE FEET OF LAND  § 
the State of Delaware, in and for 
(PERMANENT EASEMENT); AND  § 
Sussex County 
458.4545 SQUARE FEET OF LAND §  
(TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION 
§ 
C.A. No. S13C-01-032  
EASEMENTS), 
§ 
 
§ 
 
Defendants Below, 
§ 
 
Appellants, 
§ 
 
 
§ 
 
v. 
§ 
 
 
§ 
STATE OF DELAWARE, UPON THE § 
RELATION OF THE SECRETARY  § 
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF  
§ 
TRANSPORTATION, 
§ 
 
 
§ 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
§ 
 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
 
 
 
 
  
Submitted: December 10, 2015  
Decided: 
December 14, 2015 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VAUGHN and SEITZ, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
This 14th day of December 2015, having considered the notice of appeal 
from interlocutory order, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
Emil Lewis Lesko has petitioned this Court, under Supreme Court 
Rule 42, to accept an appeal from an interlocutory order entered by the Superior 
2 
 
Court in a condemnation action.  Lesko seeks review of the Superior Court’s 
November 18, 2015 memorandum opinion granting a motion in limine filed by the 
State of Delaware Department of Transportation.   
 
(2) 
By order dated December 4, 2015, the Superior Court denied Lesko’s 
application for certification of an interlocutory appeal.  The court determined that 
interlocutory review of the November 18 memorandum opinion was not warranted. 
 
(3) 
The Court agrees with the Superior Court’s analysis.  The Rule 42(b) 
principles and criteria do not weigh in favor of interlocutory review of the 
November 18 memorandum opinion.   
 
(4) 
Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound 
discretion of the Court.  In this case, the Court concludes that interlocutory review 
of the November 18 memorandum opinion should be refused. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the interlocutory 
appeal is REFUSED.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice