Grant, Naomi v. Derek Tyson-Davis

CourtSupreme Court of Delaware
DecidedJanuary 20, 2026
Docket483, 2025
StatusPublished

This text of Grant, Naomi v. Derek Tyson-Davis (Grant, Naomi v. Derek Tyson-Davis) 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.

Bluebook
Grant, Naomi v. Derek Tyson-Davis, (Del. 2026).

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

NAOMI GRANT,1 § § No. 483, 2025 Respondent Below, § Appellant, § Court Below—Family Court § of the State of Delaware v. § § File No. CN23-03309 DEREK TYSON-DAVIS, § Petition No. 25-11953 § Petitioner Below, § Appellee. §

Submitted: December 31, 2025 Decided: January 20, 2026

Before VALIHURA, TRAYNOR, and LEGROW, Justices.

ORDER

After consideration of the notice to show cause and the response, it appears to

the Court that:

(1) On December 1, 2025, Naomi Grant (“Mother”) filed this appeal from

a Family Court consent order, dated September 22, 2025, granting her joint legal

custody and visitation with her children. A timely appeal of the order would have

been filed by October 22, 2025. The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing

Mother to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely. In her

1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d). response, Mother stated that incorrect information about filing an appeal and her job

prevented her from filing a timely appeal.

(2) Time is a jurisdictional requirement.2 Unless an appellant can

demonstrate that the failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-

related personnel, an untimely appeal cannot be considered.3 Mother contends that

she was provided with the incorrect paperwork for filing a timely appeal, but the

documents she submits in support of this claim are dated after the appeal deadline

expired. Mother has not shown that her failure to file a timely appeal is attributable

to court-related personnel. Consequently, 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, under Supreme Court Rules 29(b),

that this appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Gary F. Traynor Justice

2 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 3 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 2

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Bey v. State
402 A.2d 362 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1979)
Carr v. State
554 A.2d 778 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Grant, Naomi v. Derek Tyson-Davis, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grant-naomi-v-derek-tyson-davis-del-2026.