Bacon, Devearl v. Mark Purnell, Herbert W. Mondros, Esq.
This text of Bacon, Devearl v. Mark Purnell, Herbert W. Mondros, Esq. (Bacon, Devearl v. Mark Purnell, Herbert W. Mondros, Esq.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
DEVEARL BACON, § § No. 486, 2025 Plaintiff Below, § Appellant, § Court Below—Superior Court § of the State of Delaware v. § § Cr. ID No. N24C-12-082 MARK PURNELL and HERBERT § W. MONDROS, ESQ., § § Defendants Below, § Appellees. §
Submitted: December 30, 2025 Decided: January 16, 2026
On December 11, 2025, the Clerk issued a notice, by certified mail, directing
the appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for his failure
to comply with Supreme Court Rule 42 in appealing an interlocutory order. Postal
records show that the notice to show cause was delivered on December 17, 2025. A
timely response to the notice to show cause was due by December 29, 2025. To
date, the appellant has not responded to the notice to show cause. Dismissal of this
appeal is therefore deemed to be unopposed.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rules 3(b)(2)
and 29(b), that this appeal is DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Gary F. Traynor Justice
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bacon, Devearl v. Mark Purnell, Herbert W. Mondros, Esq., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bacon-devearl-v-mark-purnell-herbert-w-mondros-esq-del-2026.