Legal Opinion
Emerald Partners v. Berlin
Supreme Court of Delaware
Decided July 20, 2001No. 96, 2001PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HOLLAND, Justice.
The defendants-appellees, Ronald P. Berlin, David L. Florence, Rex A. Sebastian and Theodore H. Strauss (“Appel-lees”), have moved to dismiss the plaintiff-appellant, Emerald Partners’ (“Emerald”) appeal for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 29(b) and 30(d). The Appellees contends that an order entered prior to the determination of costs is interlocutory 3 and not appealable unless the appellant has complied with Supreme Court Rule 42. The Appellees’ argument is supported by this Court’s prior holdings in appeals from the Superior Court and the Family…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Catlin v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
- J. I. Kislak Mortgage Corp. v. William Matthews, Builder, Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1973
- Robinson v. MedingSupreme Court of Delaware · 1960
- Lipson v. LipsonSupreme Court of Delaware · 2001
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Scion Breckenridge Managing Member, LLC v. ASB Allegiance Real Estate FundSupreme Court of Delaware · 2013
- McDaniel v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.Supreme Court of Delaware · 2004
- Dunlap v. REGIONS FINANCIAL CORP.Supreme Court of Alabama · 2007
- Cahall v. ThomasSupreme Court of Delaware · 2005
- Marilyn Abrams Living Trust v. Pope Invs. LLCCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 2018
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.