From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bryson v. State Budget

Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Apr 24, 2013
741 S.E.2d 760 (S.C. 2013)

Opinion

No. 27245.

2013-04-24

Thomas A. BRYSON on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons, Petitioner, v. STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD; Nikki R. Haley; Curtis M. Loftis, Jr.; Richard Eckstrom; and Hugh K. Leatherman, Jr.; in their official capacities as members of the State Budget and Control Board, Respondents. Appellate Case No. 2012–213099.

Michael S. Medlock and C. Lance Sheek, of South Carolina Legal Solutions, LLC, of Columbia, for Petitioner. C. Mitchell Brown, William C. Wood, Jr., and Michael J. Anzelmo, of Nelson, Mullins, Riley, & Scarborough, LLP, of Columbia for Respondents Nikki R. Haley, Richard Eckstrom, Curtis M. Loftis, Jr., and the South Carolina Budget and Control Board.


Michael S. Medlock and C. Lance Sheek, of South Carolina Legal Solutions, LLC, of Columbia, for Petitioner. C. Mitchell Brown, William C. Wood, Jr., and Michael J. Anzelmo, of Nelson, Mullins, Riley, & Scarborough, LLP, of Columbia for Respondents Nikki R. Haley, Richard Eckstrom, Curtis M. Loftis, Jr., and the South Carolina Budget and Control Board.
Michael R. Hitchcock, John Potter Hazard, V, and Kenneth M. Moffitt, of Columbia, for Respondent Hugh Leatherman, Jr.


Petitioner brought this suit in the Court's original jurisdiction seeking a declaration that the South Carolina Budget and Control Board's August 8, 2012 decision raising enrollee premiums for the State's health insurance plan was a violation of the constitutionally mandated separation of powers. In Hampton v. Haley, Op. No. 27244, 2013 WL 1749391 (S.C. Sup.Ct. filed April 24, 2013), we held the Board's decision violated the separation of powers. Accordingly, for the reasons stated therein, we enter judgment in favor of petitioner. We need not consider any of the other issues presented by petitioner because the separation of powers issue is dispositive. See Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613, 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (declining to address the remaining issues where a prior issue was dispositive). TOAL, C.J., BEATTY, and KITTREDGE, JJ., concur.

PLEICONES, J., concurring in result only.


Summaries of

Bryson v. State Budget

Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Apr 24, 2013
741 S.E.2d 760 (S.C. 2013)
Case details for

Bryson v. State Budget

Case Details

Full title:Thomas A. BRYSON on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons…

Court:Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Date published: Apr 24, 2013

Citations

741 S.E.2d 760 (S.C. 2013)
402 S.C. 388