From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stogsdill v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Human Servs.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Jan 20, 2016
781 S.E.2d 719 (S.C. 2016)

Opinion

Appellate Case No. 2014–002513. No. 27601.

01-20-2016

Richard STOGSDILL, Petitioner, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent.

Patricia Logan Harrison, of Columbia, for petitioner. Richard G. Hepfer, of Columbia, for Respondent. Anna Maria Darwin and Sarah Garland St. Onge, both of Columbia, for Amicus Curiae Protection and Advocacy for People with Disabilities, Inc.; Andrew J. Atkins, of Columbia, for Amicus Curiae South Carolina Chapter of the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys; and Stephen Suggs, of Columbia, for Amicus Curiae South Carolina Appleseed Legal Justice Center.


Patricia Logan Harrison, of Columbia, for petitioner.

Richard G. Hepfer, of Columbia, for Respondent.

Anna Maria Darwin and Sarah Garland St. Onge, both of Columbia, for Amicus Curiae Protection and Advocacy for People with Disabilities, Inc.; Andrew J. Atkins, of Columbia, for Amicus Curiae South Carolina Chapter of the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys; and Stephen Suggs, of Columbia, for Amicus Curiae South Carolina Appleseed Legal Justice Center.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We granted a writ of certiorari to review the court of appeals' decision in Stogsdill v. South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, 410 S.C. 273, 763 S.E.2d 638 (Ct.App.2014). We now dismiss the writ as improvidently granted.

DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED.


Summaries of

Stogsdill v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Human Servs.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Jan 20, 2016
781 S.E.2d 719 (S.C. 2016)
Case details for

Stogsdill v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Human Servs.

Case Details

Full title:Richard STOGSDILL, Petitioner, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND…

Court:Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Date published: Jan 20, 2016

Citations

781 S.E.2d 719 (S.C. 2016)
781 S.E.2d 719

Citing Cases

Stogsdill v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Human Servs.

Although Nancy and Richard were successful with regard to their argument that Richard was at risk of…

Myers v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Human Servs.

Although Stogsdill had not been decided prior to the parties' submission of their briefs—and thus, was not…