No. 529, 2003.Supreme Court of Delaware.
April 5, 2004.
Family Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County, File No. CN01-08097.
ORDER
Randy J. Holland, Justice.
This 5th day of April 2004, it appears to the Court that:
(1) On February 12, 2004, the Clerk issued a notice to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b), for the appellant’s failure to diligently prosecute the appeal by not filing his opening brief and appendix. The notice to show cause stated that, unless the appellant responded within 10 days of receipt, dismissal of the appeal would be deemed to be unopposed.[1]
(2) The notice to show cause was returned by the post office on March 4, 2004, marked “unclaimed.” On the same date, the Clerk re-mailed the notice to show cause to the appellant’s last-known address via first class mail and it was not returned.
(3) The appellant has failed to respond to the notice to show cause within the required 10-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.
Page 239
ROBERT LYONS Defendant Below, Appellant, v. DBHI, LLC, KURT T. BRYSON and RHONDA BRYSON Defendants…
TWITTER, INC., Plaintiff, v. ELON R. MUSK, X HOLDINGS I, INC., and X HOLDINGS II,…
Re: Twitter, Inc., v. Elon R. Musk et al. C.A. No. 2022-0613-KSJM.Court of Chancery of…
Re: Twitter, Inc., v. Elon R. Musk et al. C.A. No. 2022-0613-KSJM.Court of Chancery of…
179 A.3d 824 (2018) CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, New York City Employees' Retirement System,…
STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff, v. FREDDY L. FLONNORY, Defendant. Cr. ID. No. 9707012190 SUPERIOR COURT…