From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Food Mart v. S.C.D.H.E.C

Supreme Court of South Carolina
May 20, 1996
322 S.C. 232 (S.C. 1996)

Summary

vacating the portion of the court of appeals "opinion to the extent it addresse[d] whether petitioner was required to exhaust its administrative remedies" because the issue was "procedurally barred from any appellate review because it was neither raised by the parties nor ruled on by the trial court below"

Summary of this case from Wardlaw v. S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs.

Opinion

24427

Heard April 2, 1996

Decided May 20, 1996 Rehearing Denied June 20, 1996

Appeal from Circuit Court, Richland County, Walter J. Bristow, Jr., Judge. Affirmed in part and vacated in part

Bobby J. Pippin, Columbia, pro se Petitioner.

Samuel L. Finkles, III, Walton J. McLeod, III and F. Carlisle Roberts, Jr., South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, Columbia, for Respondent.


ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS


This court granted certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision dismissing petitioner Food Mart's appeal on justiciability grounds. Food Mart v. South Carolina Dept. of Health and Environmental Control, 318 S.C. 384, 458 S.E.2d 47 (Ct.App. 1995). We affirm the Court of Appeals insofar as it found petitioner's claim was moot. However, we vacate the opinion to the extent it addresses whether petitioner was required to exhaust its administrative remedies before bringing the present declaratory judgment action. This issue is procedurally barred from any appellate review because it was neither raised by the parties nor ruled on by the trial court below. Matters not argued to or ruled on by the trial court are not preserved for review. Grant v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 319 S.C. 348, 461 S.E.2d 388 (1995); Vaught v. Waites, 300 S.C. 201, 387 S.E.2d 91 (Ct. App. 1989) (per curiam).

We decline to address the constitutional issues raised to and ruled on by the trial court. In light of this decision, any discussion of the merits of petitioner's claim would be purely academic. Furthermore, we granted certiorari specifically only to consider whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding mootness and failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Affirmed in part and vacated in part.

FINNEY, C.J., and TOAL, MOORE and BURNETT, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Food Mart v. S.C.D.H.E.C

Supreme Court of South Carolina
May 20, 1996
322 S.C. 232 (S.C. 1996)

vacating the portion of the court of appeals "opinion to the extent it addresse[d] whether petitioner was required to exhaust its administrative remedies" because the issue was "procedurally barred from any appellate review because it was neither raised by the parties nor ruled on by the trial court below"

Summary of this case from Wardlaw v. S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs.
Case details for

Food Mart v. S.C.D.H.E.C

Case Details

Full title:Food Mart, Petitioner v. South Carolina Department of Health and…

Court:Supreme Court of South Carolina

Date published: May 20, 1996

Citations

322 S.C. 232 (S.C. 1996)
471 S.E.2d 688

Citing Cases

Wardlaw v. S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs.

Although subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time, exhaustion of administrative remedies must be…

Unifund CCR, LLC v. Wade

("It is axiomatic that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to…