Changeflow GovPing Courts & Legal Delaware Supreme Court Dismisses Anderson Appea...
Priority review Enforcement Removed Final

Delaware Supreme Court Dismisses Anderson Appeal for Non-Compliance

Favicon for courts.delaware.gov Delaware Court Opinions
Filed March 25th, 2026
Detected March 28th, 2026
Email

Summary

The Delaware Supreme Court dismissed Alicia Anderson's interlocutory appeal for failing to comply with Supreme Court Rule 42, which requires an application for certification of an interlocutory appeal to be filed first with the trial court. Anderson's failure to follow this procedural rule resulted in the dismissal of her appeal.

What changed

The Delaware Supreme Court has dismissed Alicia Anderson's interlocutory appeal in case No. 76, 2026. The dismissal is due to Anderson's non-compliance with Supreme Court Rule 42, which mandates filing an application for certification of an interlocutory appeal with the trial court before appealing to the Supreme Court. Anderson filed a notice of interlocutory appeal directly without this prerequisite certification application.

This decision highlights the critical importance of adhering to procedural rules for appeals in Delaware. For legal professionals and litigants, this serves as a reminder that jurisdiction is limited to final judgments unless specific interlocutory appeal procedures are strictly followed. Failure to comply with rules like Rule 42 can lead to the dismissal of an appeal, regardless of the merits of the underlying case or arguments about access to justice.

What to do next

  1. Review Supreme Court Rule 42 for interlocutory appeal procedures
  2. Ensure all procedural requirements for appeals are met before filing

Source document (simplified)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ALICIA ANDERSON, § § No. 76, 2026 Plaintiff Below, § Appellant, § Court Below: Superior Court § of the State of Delaware

  1. § § C.A. No. S25C-11-001 BAYHEALTH, INC. and § BAYHEALTH MEDICAL § CENTER, INC., § § Defendants Below, § Appellees. § Submitted: March 20, 2026 Decided: March 25, 2026 Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and GRIFFITHS, Justices. ORDER (1) On February 17, 2026, Alicia Anderson filed a notice of interlocutory appeal from a Superior Court letter order that resolved Anderson’s motion to proceed

in forma pauperis by requiring her to pay a one-time filing fee of $10; directed

Anderson not to attempt to file documents by e-mail; and provided information as to how to file a complaint that complied with the court’s rules and a motion to file the complaint under seal. The court further ordered that if Anderson failed to pay the $10 fee and file a valid complaint by March 6, 2026, the action would be dismissed.

(2) Because a review of the Superior Court docket reflected that Anderson had not filed an application for certification of an interlocutory appeal, the Senior Court Clerk of this Court issued a notice directing Anderson to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed because Anderson had not complied with Supreme Court Rule 42. In response to the notice, Anderson argues that filing fees impede indigent individuals’ access to justice. She states that she filed the notice of appeal within the time period for filing an appeal from the Superior Court’s order and therefore complied with Rule 42. (3) Absent compliance with Rule 42, this Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the review of final judgments. Under Rule 42, Anderson was required to file an 1 application for certification of the Superior Court’s letter order within ten days of that order, before filing a notice of interlocutory appeal in this Court. Instead, 2 Anderson filed a notice of interlocutory appeal without ever filing an application for certification in the Superior Court. Because Anderson has not complied with Rule 42, this appeal must be dismissed.

1 Julian v. State, 440 A.2d 990, 991 (Del. 1982). 2 See DEL. SUPR. CT. R. 42(c) (“An application for certification of an interlocutory appeal shall be

made in the first instance to the trial court . . . . Such application shall be served and filed within 10 days of the entry of the order from which the appeal is sought or such longer time as the trial court, in its discretion, may order for good cause shown.”).

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED. BY THE COURT:

/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr.

Chief Justice

Source

Analysis generated by AI. Source diff and links are from the original.

Classification

Agency
DE Courts
Filed
March 25th, 2026
Instrument
Enforcement
Legal weight
Binding
Stage
Final
Change scope
Substantive
Document ID
No. 76, 2026
Docket
C.A. No. S25C-11-001 BAYHEALTH

Who this affects

Applies to
Legal professionals
Activity scope
Appellate Procedure
Geographic scope
US-DE US-DE

Taxonomy

Primary area
Judicial Administration
Operational domain
Legal
Topics
Access to Justice Civil Procedure

Get Courts & Legal alerts

Weekly digest. AI-summarized, no noise.

Free. Unsubscribe anytime.

Get alerts for this source

We'll email you when Delaware Court Opinions publishes new changes.

Optional. Personalizes your daily digest.

Free. Unsubscribe anytime.