Blount v. CREATIVE TRAVEL

Supreme Court of Delaware
Blount v. CREATIVE TRAVEL, 963 A.2d 138 (Del. 2008)
2008 Del. LEXIS 577; 2008 WL 5234417
Steele, Chief Justice, Holland and Berger, Justices

Blount v. CREATIVE TRAVEL

Opinion

ALFRED BLOUNT, Plaintiff Below, Appellant,
v.
CREATIVE TRAVEL, Defendant Below, Appellee.

No. 537, 2008.

Supreme Court of Delaware.

Submitted: November 14, 2008.
Decided: December 16, 2008.

Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices.

ORDER

RANDY J. HOLLAND, Justice.

This 16th day of December 2008, it appears to the Court that:

(1) On October 27, 2008, the Court received Alfred Blount's untimely notice of appeal from the Superior Court's memorandum opinion of September 10, 2008 that affirmed a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or before October 10, 2008.[1]

(2) On October 28, 2008, the Clerk issued a notice directing that Blount show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed.[2] Blount filed a response to the notice to show cause on November 14, 2008. Blount's response does not address the jurisdictional issue raised in the notice to show cause.

(3) Under Delaware law, a notice of appeal must be received by the Office of the Clerk within the applicable time period to be effective.[3] Unless an appellant can demonstrate that the failure to timely file a notice of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel, an untimely appeal cannot be considered.[4]

(4) Blount does not contend, and the record does not reflect, that his failure to timely file the notice of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel. This case does not fall within the exception to the general rule that mandates the timely filing of a notice of appeal.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED.

NOTES

[1] Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a).

[2] Del. Supr. Ct. R. 29(b).

[3] See Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989) (stating that "[t]ime is a jurisdictional requirement"); Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a).

[4] Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979).

Reference

Status
Published