Legal Opinion

Redden v. McGill

Supreme Court of Delaware

Decided October 26, 1988PublishedCited by 24 opinions

1Per curiam

This is an appeal from a child support order entered by a master in the Family Court. The appellant-respondent, Bruce E. Redden, claims a denial of due process because of the master’s refusal to grant a continuance so that respondent could retain counsel. Appellant docketed his appeal in this Court without having sought de novo review of the master’s decision by a Family Court judge. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b), appellant was directed to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, in light of this Court’s recent decision in State v. Wilson, Del.Supr.,…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Husband M v. Wife DSupreme Court of Delaware · 1979
  2. Ademski v. RuthSupreme Court of Delaware · 1967
  3. State v. WilsonSupreme Court of Delaware · 1988
  4. A. L. W. v. J. H. W.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1980
  5. Bet, Inc. v. Bd. of Adjust. of Sussex Cty.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1985

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. DiGiacobbe v. SestakSupreme Court of Delaware · 1999
  2. Nixon v. BlackwellSupreme Court of Delaware · 1993
  3. Johnson v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 2005
  4. Dalton v. ClantonSupreme Court of Delaware · 1989
  5. Cassidy v. CassidySupreme Court of Delaware · 1997

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API