From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

South Carolina v. McDonald's

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Aug 27, 2007
375 S.C. 90 (S.C. 2007)

Opinion

No. 26373.

Submitted August 22, 2007.

Decided August 27, 2007.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Horry County, Edward B. Cottingham, J.

Michael H. Quinn, Quinn Law Firm, LLC, of Columbia, for Petitioner.

Barbara Munig Wessinger, S.C. Department of Transportation Legal Division, of Columbia; and Larry B. Hyman, Jr., of Conway, for Respondent.


In this condemnation action, both petitioner and respondent filed motions in limine to exclude certain evidence from the proceedings. The trial judge granted respondent's motion and denied petitioner's motion. Petitioner appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. S.C. Dep't of Transp. v. McDonald's Corp., Op. No. 2006-UP-237 (S.C.Ct.App. filed May 9, 2006). Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari from the decision of the Court of Appeals. We grant the petition, dispense with further briefing, vacate the opinion of the Court of Appeals, and dismiss the appeal.

A motion in limine is generally not considered a final order on the admissibility of evidence and, for that reason, is not immediately appealable. See, e.g. State v. Floyd, 295 S.C. 518, 369 S.E.2d 842 (1988). Because the appeal should have been dismissed, the Court of Appeals erred in addressing the merits of the appeal. Accordingly, we vacate the opinion of the Court of Appeals and dismiss the appeal as the order on the motions in limine is not immediately appealable.

VACATED AND DISMISSED.

TOAL, C.J., MOORE, WALLER, BURNETT and PLEICONES, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

South Carolina v. McDonald's

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Aug 27, 2007
375 S.C. 90 (S.C. 2007)
Case details for

South Carolina v. McDonald's

Case Details

Full title:SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Respondent, v. MCDONALD'S…

Court:Supreme Court of South Carolina

Date published: Aug 27, 2007

Citations

375 S.C. 90 (S.C. 2007)
650 S.E.2d 473

Citing Cases

In re Manigo

Since the Court of Appeals erroneously addressed the merits of an unreviewable order, I would vacate that…

Estate of Barringer v. Light

To the extent striking portions of the expert's report was an evidentiary ruling, we decline to address the…