In the Matter of Petition of Lewis

Supreme Court of Delaware

In the Matter of Petition of Lewis

972 A.2d 312, 2009 WL 1059107

CourtSupreme Court of Delaware

DecidedApril 21, 2009

Docket159, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 972 A.2d 312 (In the Matter of Petition of Lewis) 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

In the Matter of Petition of Lewis, 972 A.2d 312, 2009 WL 1059107 (Del. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF JIMMIE LEWIS FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

No. 159, 2009

Supreme Court of Delaware.

April 21, 2009.

ORDER

RANDY J. HOLLAND, Justice.

This 21st day of April 2009, it appears to the Court that, on March 25, 2009, the Clerk of the Court issued a notice to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 43(b) (vi), which provides that a petition for a writ of mandamus directed to the Court of Common Pleas must be presented to the Superior Court in the first instance. In re Paskins, Del. Supr., No. 305, 2005, Berger, J. (Sept. 21, 2005). The appellant has failed to respond to the notice to show cause within the required ten-day period. Therefore, dismissal of this action is deemed to be unopposed.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 3(b) and 29(b), that the within appeal is DISMISSED.

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

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF JIMMIE LEWIS FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

No. 159, 2009

Supreme Court of Delaware.

April 21, 2009.

ORDER

RANDY J. HOLLAND, Justice.

This 21st day of April 2009, it appears to the Court that, on March 25, 2009, the Clerk of the Court issued a notice to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 43(b) (vi), which provides that a petition for a writ of mandamus directed to the Court of Common Pleas must be presented to the Superior Court in the first instance. In re Paskins, Del. Supr., No. 305, 2005, Berger, J. (Sept. 21, 2005). The appellant has failed to respond to the notice to show cause within the required ten-day period. Therefore, dismissal of this action is deemed to be unopposed.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 3(b) and 29(b), that the within appeal is DISMISSED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

972 A.2d 312, 2009 WL 1059107, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-matter-of-petition-of-lewis-del-2009.