Townsend v. Griffith

Supreme Court of Delaware

Townsend v. Griffith

570 A.2d 1157, 1990 Del. LEXIS 33

CourtSupreme Court of Delaware

DecidedFebruary 6, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 570 A.2d 1157 (Townsend v. Griffith) 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

Townsend v. Griffith, 570 A.2d 1157, 1990 Del. LEXIS 33 (Del. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

HOLLAND, Justice:

On January 2,1989, William Jess Barren-tine (“Barrentine”) appearing pro se, filed a notice of appeal and related documents. Barrentine seeks to appeal a final order of the Superior Court dated December 6, 1989. Barrentine was not a party to the proceedings in the Superior Court, nor did he intervene therein.

*1158 The defendant-appellee, Carroll W. Griffith (“Griffith”), has filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that Barrentine lacks standing to appeal the order of the Superior Court. Barrentine has filed an answer to the motion to dismiss. Barren-tine does not contend that he was a party to the proceedings in the Superior Court. However, Barrentine does contend that he can represent the interests of the parties, who cannot afford to hire an attorney. Barrentine is not an attorney.

Barrentine’s effort to appeal the decision of the Superior Court must fail, as a matter of law, for two fundamental reasons. First, a nonparty has no standing to take a direct appeal or an interlocutory appeal to this Court. See Del. Const, art IV, § 11; 10 Del. C. § 960; Supr.Ct.R. 7. Cf. Bender v. Williamsport Area School Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541-49, 106 S.Ct. 1326, 1331-35, 89 L.Ed.2d 501 (1986). Second, only a member of the Bar of this Court, a party appearing pro se, or an attorney ad--mitted pro hoc vice, may participate in an appeal in this Court. Supr.Ct.R. 12; Delaware State Bar Ass’n v. Alexander, Del.Supr. 386 A.2d 652 (1978).

The motion to dismiss this appeal must be granted. This appeal is DISMISSED.

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

HOLLAND, Justice:

On January 2,1989, William Jess Barren-tine (“Barrentine”) appearing pro se, filed a notice of appeal and related documents. Barrentine seeks to appeal a final order of the Superior Court dated December 6, 1989. Barrentine was not a party to the proceedings in the Superior Court, nor did he intervene therein.

*1158 The defendant-appellee, Carroll W. Griffith (“Griffith”), has filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that Barrentine lacks standing to appeal the order of the Superior Court. Barrentine has filed an answer to the motion to dismiss. Barren-tine does not contend that he was a party to the proceedings in the Superior Court. However, Barrentine does contend that he can represent the interests of the parties, who cannot afford to hire an attorney. Barrentine is not an attorney.

Barrentine’s effort to appeal the decision of the Superior Court must fail, as a matter of law, for two fundamental reasons. First, a nonparty has no standing to take a direct appeal or an interlocutory appeal to this Court. See Del. Const, art IV, § 11; 10 Del. C. § 960; Supr.Ct.R. 7. Cf. Bender v. Williamsport Area School Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541-49, 106 S.Ct. 1326, 1331-35, 89 L.Ed.2d 501 (1986). Second, only a member of the Bar of this Court, a party appearing pro se, or an attorney ad--mitted pro hoc vice, may participate in an appeal in this Court. Supr.Ct.R. 12; Delaware State Bar Ass’n v. Alexander, Del.Supr. 386 A.2d 652 (1978).

The motion to dismiss this appeal must be granted. This appeal is DISMISSED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

570 A.2d 1157, 1990 Del. LEXIS 33, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/townsend-v-griffith-del-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack