Court Opinion

ID: 9701693
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 22:31:17.77582+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:08:53.894634
License: Public Domain

DUFFY, Justice
(dissenting):
I regret that I cannot join in the Court’s Opinion.
As I see it, the appeal raises a narrow issue in statutory construction and, briefly stated, it is this: Does filing a petition for certiorari with the Prothonotary comply with the requirement of 9 Del.C. § 1353? In my view, it does not for several reasons :
First, the Statute requires, not a “filing” but a presentment; it states that the petition “shall be presented.”
Second, there is a significant difference between merely filing a paper with the Clerk of the Court and “presenting” it, which implies a request for judicial action. *744That difference was noted by Judge Maris in Williams v. Todman, 3 Cir., 367 F.2d 1009 (1966), when he wrote:
“There may be a vast difference between filing a petition in a court, which ordinarily means lodging it in the clerk’s office to remain there until action on it is called for, and presenting it to the court, which usually means bringing it to the attention of the judge, by motion or otherwise, for action. . . . The latter is clearly what is required by section 412, in addition to mere filing, but is what the plaintiff wholly failed to do
In short, “present” is a technical term which means to submit for judicial action. See the cases at 33A Words and Phrases (perm, ed.) p. 8.
Third, “presentation” of the petition is essential to establish jurisdiction in the Superior Court. Merely lodging it in the Prothonotary’s office is not enough. No process is issued and, indeed, there is no defendant until an order is signed by a Superior Court Judge. And while such an order is signed “of course,” the Judge must be satisfied that the petition is prima facie complete and he must determine what order is appropriate under the circumstances.
Fourth, requiring a petitioner to present the application for judicial action within the statutory period is fair.* The petitioner, who was the loser below, should not be permitted to cast a cloud over the Board of Adjustment proceeding simply by filing a paper in the office of the Prothonotary where it may remain for an indeterminate time. I am unaware of any instance in which a Clerk of Court has a duty, in a contested situation, to “present” an order for signature by a Judge to establish jurisdiction. Putting that burden on a petitioner-loser is reasonable and, in may view, is required by 9 Deí.C. § 1353. And doing so would expedite the review process. Compare Board of Adjustment of New Castle County v. Barone, Del.Supr., 314 A.2d 174 (1973).
I would reverse the judgment of the Superior Court.

 There is, of course, no duty on a Judge to act on the petition within a specified period.