From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hendrix v. Eastern Distribution

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Nov 6, 1995
320 S.C. 218 (S.C. 1995)

Summary

holding issues not raised to and ruled on by the trial court are not preserved for appeal

Summary of this case from State v. Firetag

Opinion

24342

Heard October 17, 1995

Decided November 6, 1995 Rehearing Denied December 8, 1995

Appeal From Circuit Court, Greenville County Thomas J. Ervin, J.

Henry Hammer, Howard Hammer and Lowell E. Bernstein, Hammer and Hammer, Columbia; and Scott Elliott, Columbia, for petitioner. Leonard J. Spooner, Greenville, for respondent.


We granted a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' opinion in Hendrix v. Eastern Distribution. Inc., 316 S.C. 34, 446 S.E.2d 440 (Ct.App. 1994). We affirm in result.

Hendrix instituted a breach of contract action against her former employer, Eastern Distribution, Inc. The jury returned a verdict for Hendrix. Eastern appealed, claiming the trial court should have granted its motion for a directed verdict. The Court of Appeals found this issue procedurally barred from review and, accordingly, affirmed the judgment in Hendrix' favor. The Court of Appeals nonetheless went on to address the merits of the issue.

Since the issue concerning Eastern's motion for a directed verdict was not preserved for review, it should not have been addressed. Smith v. Phillips, 318 S.C. 453, 458 S.E.2d 427 (1995) (Davis Adv. Sh. No. 13 at 18); Connolly v. People's Life Insurance Co., 299 S.C. 348, 384 S.E.2d 738 (1989). Accordingly, we affirm in result only. We vacate the Court of Appeals' opinion to the extent it addressed an issue which was not preserved.

Affirmed in result.


Summaries of

Hendrix v. Eastern Distribution

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Nov 6, 1995
320 S.C. 218 (S.C. 1995)

holding issues not raised to and ruled on by the trial court are not preserved for appeal

Summary of this case from State v. Firetag

vacating a court of appeals' opinion to the extent it addressed an issue that was not preserved for review

Summary of this case from Stubbs v. S.C. Dep't of Emp't Workforce & JSE, LLC

vacating an opinion by this court “to the extent it addressed an issue which was not preserved”

Summary of this case from Town of Arcadia Lakes v. S.C. Dep't of Health

vacating an opinion by this court "to the extent it addressed an issue which was not preserved"

Summary of this case from Town of Arcadia Lakes v. S. C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control

vacating an opinion by the court of appeals to the extent it addressed an issue not preserved for review

Summary of this case from Republic Contracting Corp. v. South Carolina Department of Highways

vacating an opinion by this court to the extent it addressed an issue that was not preserved for appellate review

Summary of this case from Ex Parte Black

vacating Court of Appeals opinion to the extent it addressed issue that was not preserved

Summary of this case from McKissick v. J. F. Cleckley Company

providing that an issue should not be addressed by an appellate court if it is not preserved for the court's review

Summary of this case from Roddey v. Wal-Mart Stores E., L.P.
Case details for

Hendrix v. Eastern Distribution

Case Details

Full title:Mary B. Hendrix, Respondent v. Eastern Distribution, Inc., Petitioner

Court:Supreme Court of South Carolina

Date published: Nov 6, 1995

Citations

320 S.C. 218 (S.C. 1995)
464 S.E.2d 112

Citing Cases

Berry v. McLeod

Therefore, it is not preserved for our review. SeeHendrix v. EasternDistribution, Inc., 320 S.C. 218, 464…

State v. Dudley

Therefore, I believe this issue is not preserved and should not be addressed for the first time on appeal.…