of fundamental fairness present in the proceeding before the board”). This Court has considered some such cases without addressing the issue of the propriety of remand. See e.g., New Castle County Dep’t. of Fin. v. 1001 Jefferson Plaza Partnership, et al., Del. Supr., No. 371, 1994, 1994 WL 632635, Holland, J. (Nov. 7, 1994) (ORDER) (affirming remand by Superior Court to board to make a definitive ruling on the merits of appellee's tax appeals for fiscal year 1993-94); New Castle County Bd. of Assessment Review and New Castle County v. D’Alonzo, DeLSupr., No. 388, 1986, 1987 WL 37300, Moore, J. (May 5, 1987) (ORDER) (affirming Superior Court’s decision to reverse and remand); Board of Assessment Review of New Castle County v. Silverbrook Cemetery Co., Del. Supr., 378 A.2d 619 (1977) (<HOLDING>). Since the issue which we address today was
holding in part that superior court when remanding the case should not have enlarged the scope of litigation holding that where a superior court judge was named a defendant in an action for a writ of mandamus the prosecuting attorney is the proper court representative of the superior court judge holding district court should have abstained pursuant to younger and thus remanding to district court to dismiss without prejudice holding that the district court did not have jurisdiction and remanding the matter to state court holding that it is axiomatic that remanding a case to state court terminates the jurisdiction of a federal bankruptcy or district court over that case