that was built is not legitimately or rationally related to an existing health menace for the need for that sewer. And that’s the basis of the lawsuit.” Argument of Counsel for Plaintiffs at Hearing Before District Court on Motions to Dismiss, Oct. 16, 1996, Transcript at 16-17. We seek also to ascertain to what degree the requested relief — including a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and money damages — may be obtained in the courts of Delaware. (b) Resolution of the issues of law presented in the certified question will guide this Court’s analysis of the federal question whether a “plain, speedy and efficient” remedy is available to plaintiffs in the courts of Delaware. In the ab rs v. New Castle County Bd. of Assessment Review, 642 A.2d 1251, 1262-65 (Del.Super.1993) (<HOLDING>); (4) The important and urgent reasons for an
holding consistent with the board of claims position that the provisions of the procurement code have not altered or limited the exclusive jurisdiction of the independent administrative board over a particular nonprocurement matter holding that the court did not have jurisdiction to consider an argument not presented to the board in a motion for reconsideration holding that discretion of zoning board was not sufficiently circumscribed to support substantive due process claim holding that taxpayer could not have presented substantive due process claim to the board of assessment review because of the limited jurisdiction of that board holding that the courts jurisdiction is limited to the appeal of final board decisions that are adverse to the claimant