§

Eagle Container v. County of Newberry

366 S.C. 611 (S.C. Ct. App. 2005)
Eagle Container v. County of Newberry

5 Citing cases

  1. Shealy v. Doe

    370 S.C. 194 (S.C. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 23 times
    Finding an issue abandoned on appeal when the appellant failed to cite supporting authority for his position and made conclusory arguments

    Mid-State AutoAuction of Lexington, Inc. v. Altman, 324 S.C. 65, 69, 476 S.E.2d 690, 692 (1996). The first question of statutory interpretation is whether the statute's meaning is clear on its face. Wade v. Berkeley County, 348 S.C. 224, 229, 559 S.E.2d 586, 588 (2002); Eagle Container Co., LLC v. Countyof Newberry, 366 S.C. 611, 622, 622 S.E.2d 733, 738 (Ct.App. 2005). When a statute's language is plain and unambiguous, and conveys a clear and definite meaning, the rules of statutory interpretation are not needed, and this Court has no right to impose another meaning.

  2. Doe ex Rel. Legal Guardian v. Barnwell

    633 S.E.2d 518 (S.C. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 4 times

    "Subject matter jurisdiction is the power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong." Eagle Container Co. v. County of Newberry, 366 S.C. 611, 633-34, 622 S.E.2d 733, 744 (Ct.App. 2005) (citation omitted). In Byrd v. Irmo High School, the supreme court found that South Carolina law does not provide for judicial review of student suspensions of ten days or less. 321 S.C. 426, 432-36, 468 S.E.2d 861, 864-67 (1996).

  3. Moore v. Weinberg

    373 S.C. 209 (S.C. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 56 times
    Reversing the grant of summary judgment on a negligence cause of action against an attorney who, in his capacity as an escrow agent, disbursed the escrowed funds in violation of a written assignment that he himself had drafted

    "In reviewing the grant of summary judgment, [an appellate court] applies the same standard that governs the trial court under Rule 56, SCRCP: summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Pittman v. Grand Strand Entm't, Inc., 363 S.C. 531, 536, 611 S.E.2d 922, 925 (2005); Eagle Container Co., LLC v.County of Newberry, 366 S.C. 611, 622 S.E.2d 733 (Ct.App. 2005); B B Liquors, Inc. v. O'Neil, 361 S.C. 267, 603 S.E.2d 629 (Ct.App. 2004). In determining whether any triable issue of fact exists, the evidence and all inferences that can reasonably be drawn therefrom must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.

  4. Singleton v. Sherer

    377 S.C. 185 (S.C. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 68 times
    Holding a landowner was not liable to an invitee who was aware of the condition and who "voluntarily exposed himself to any potential danger posed by the" condition

    "In reviewing the grant of summary judgment, [an appellate court] applies the same standard that governs the trial court under Rule 56, SCRCP: summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Pittman v.Grand Strand Entm't, Inc., 363 S.C. 531, 536, 611 S.E.2d 922, 925 (2005); Young v. South Carolina Dep't ofDisabilities Special Needs, 374 S.C. 360, 649 S.E.2d 488 (2007); Henderson v. Allied Signal, Inc., 373 S.C. 179, 644 S.E.2d 724 (2007); Eagle Container Co., LLC v.County of Newberry, 366 S.C. 611, 622 S.E.2d 733 (Ct.App. 2005); B B Liquors, Inc. v. O'Neil, 361 S.C. 267, 603 S.E.2d 629 (Ct.App. 2004). In determining whether any triable issue of fact exists, the evidence and all inferences that can reasonably be drawn therefrom must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.

  5. Livingston v. The Reg'l Med. Ctr. of Orangeburg & Calhoun Counties

    No. 2024-UP-311 (S.C. Ct. App. Sep. 11, 2024)

    See Eagle Container Co., LLC v. County of Newberry, 366 S.C. 611, 634, 622 S.E.2d 733, 745 (Ct. App. 2005), rev'd on other grounds, 379 S.C. 564, 666 S.E.2d 892 (2008). Accordingly, we find this question is not yet ripe for review.