AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Judges

BELL HELICOPTER TEXTRON, INC., Defendant, Appellant, v. ANDRES ARTEAGA, indi

Henry duPont Ridgely

Court-Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County

Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices.

ORDER

This 28th day of March 2013, upon consideration of the notice and supplemental notice of interlocutory appeal, it appears to the Court that:

(1) On March 19, 2013, defendant/appellant, Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. (hereinafter "Bell"), petitioned this Court pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 42 to accept an interlocutory appeal from the Superior Court's order of February 20, 2013 that denied Bell's motion to reopen under Superior Court Civil Rule 60(b). By order dated March 19, 2013, the Superior Court denied Bell's application for certification.

(2) Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound discretion of this Court and are granted only in exceptional circumstances. Having examined the transcript of the February 19, 2013 hearing held on Bell's motion to reopen, the February 20, 2013 order denying the motion to reopen, the underlying November 30, 2012 opinion denying Bell's motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens, and the criteria set forth in Supreme Court Rule 42, we have concluded that exceptional circumstances meriting interlocutory review do not exist in this case.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the interlocutory appeal is REFUSED.

BY THE COURT:

Henry duPont Ridgely


Justice


Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. v. Arteaga
(Mar 28, 2013)