From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Alliance Biomedical Research, LLC v. Parham

Court of Appeals of South Carolina
Jun 13, 2018
2018-UP-246 (S.C. Ct. App. Jun. 13, 2018)

Opinion

2018-UP-246

06-13-2018

Alliance Biomedical Research, LLC, Appellant, v. Judith H. Parham, Personal Representative of the Estate of David Michael Parham, deceased; and Parham & Smith, LLC; Respondents. Appellate Case No. 2016-001525

Franklin Milton Mann, Jr. of Franklin Milton Mann, Jr. Attorney at Law, of Spartanburg, for Appellant. M. Dawes Cooke, Jr. and Jeffrey Michael Bogdan, both of Barnwell Whaley Patterson & Helms, LLC, of Charleston, for Respondents.


THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

Submitted May 1, 2018

Appeal From Pickens County Perry H. Gravely, Circuit Court Judge

Franklin Milton Mann, Jr. of Franklin Milton Mann, Jr. Attorney at Law, of Spartanburg, for Appellant.

M. Dawes Cooke, Jr. and Jeffrey Michael Bogdan, both of Barnwell Whaley Patterson & Helms, LLC, of Charleston, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Turner v. Milliman, 392 S.C. 116, 122, 708 S.E.2d 766, 769 (2011) ("Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, depositions, affidavits, and discovery on file show there is no genuine issue of material fact such that the moving party must prevail as a matter of law."); Hancock v. Mid-South Mgmt. Co., 381 S.C. 326, 329-30, 673 S.E.2d 801, 802 (2009) ("In determining whether any triable issues of fact exist, the evidence and all inferences which can be reasonably drawn from the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party."); Hedgepath v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 348 S.C. 340, 355, 559 S.E.2d 327, 336 (Ct. App. 2001) ("[W]hen plain, palpable, and indisputable facts exist on which reasonable minds cannot differ, summary judgment should be granted."); Stiles v. Onorato, 318 S.C. 297, 300, 457 S.E.2d 601, 602 (1995) (holding an attorney may be held liable only when he "acts in his own personal interest, outside the scope of his representation of the client"); Gaar v. N. Myrtle Beach Realty Co., 287 S.C. 525, 529, 339 S.E.2d 887, 889 (Ct. App. 1986) ("Even if the attorney who initiates civil proceedings for his client has no probable cause to do so, he is still not liable if he acts primarily for the purpose of aiding his client in obtaining a proper adjudication of the client's claim."); id. at 528-29, 339 S.E.2d at 889 ("[A]n attorney who acts in good faith with the authority of his client is not liable to a third party in an action for malicious prosecution.").

AFFIRMED.

We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.

SHORT, THOMAS, and HILL, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Alliance Biomedical Research, LLC v. Parham

Court of Appeals of South Carolina
Jun 13, 2018
2018-UP-246 (S.C. Ct. App. Jun. 13, 2018)
Case details for

Alliance Biomedical Research, LLC v. Parham

Case Details

Full title:Alliance Biomedical Research, LLC, Appellant, v. Judith H. Parham…

Court:Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Date published: Jun 13, 2018

Citations

2018-UP-246 (S.C. Ct. App. Jun. 13, 2018)