From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Curiel v. Hampton Cnty. E.M.S.

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court
Feb 11, 2015
Appellate Case No. 2013-000391 (S.C. Feb. 11, 2015)

Opinion

Appellate Case No. 2013-000391 Opinion No. 27496

02-11-2015

Maria T. Curiel and Martin L. Curiel, Respondents, v. Hampton County E.M.S., Petitioner.

E. Mitchell Griffith and Mary E. Sharp, both of Griffith, Sadler & Sharp, P.A., of Beaufort, for Petitioner. John S. Nichols, of Bluestein, Nichols, Thompson & Delgado, LLC, of Columbia, and H. Woodrow Gooding and Mark B. Tinsley, both of Gooding & Gooding, P.A., of Allendale, for Respondents.


ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS

Appeal from Hampton County
Perry M. Buckner, Circuit Court Judge

DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED

E. Mitchell Griffith and Mary E. Sharp, both of Griffith, Sadler & Sharp, P.A., of Beaufort, for Petitioner.

John S. Nichols, of Bluestein, Nichols, Thompson & Delgado, LLC, of Columbia, and H. Woodrow Gooding and Mark B. Tinsley, both of Gooding & Gooding, P.A., of Allendale, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM: We granted certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision in Curiel v. Hampton County E.M.S., 401 S.C. 646, 737 S.E.2d 854 (Ct. App. 2012). We now dismiss the writ as improvidently granted.

DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED.

TOAL, C.J., PLEICONES, BEATTY, KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Curiel v. Hampton Cnty. E.M.S.

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court
Feb 11, 2015
Appellate Case No. 2013-000391 (S.C. Feb. 11, 2015)
Case details for

Curiel v. Hampton Cnty. E.M.S.

Case Details

Full title:Maria T. Curiel and Martin L. Curiel, Respondents, v. Hampton County…

Court:STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court

Date published: Feb 11, 2015

Citations

Appellate Case No. 2013-000391 (S.C. Feb. 11, 2015)