From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Diamond v. Powell

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jul 25, 1978
246 S.E.2d 233 (S.C. 1978)

Opinion

20726

July 25, 1978.

Hammond A. Beale, Columbia, for appellant. Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod, Deputy Atty. Gen. C. Tolbert Goolsby, Asst. Atty. Gen. Treva G. Ashworth, Samuel F. Painter of Nexsen, Pruet, Jacobs Pollard, and David W. Robinson, II of Robinson, McFadden, Moore Pope, Columbia, for respondents.


July 25, 1978.


Appellant brought this action against respondents seeking damages for assault and battery, false imprisonment and trespass. This appeal is from a jury verdict in favor of respondents.

After briefs were filed with this Court the respondents moved to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that the appellant's brief violates Supreme Court Rule 8, Section 2 in that the questions involved in the appeal "are not set forth in the briefest and most general terms upon one (1) page, but are presented as twelve (12) lengthy exceptions covering four and one half (4 1/2) pages of the appellant's brief."

Counsel for appellant has failed to frame questions as required by Rule 8, Section 2, and has instead reproduced, with slight modification, twelve of the eighteen exceptions in his brief. This violates the foregoing Rule.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 8, Section 2 of the Rules of this Court. We have, however, examined the record and have determined that this appeal would be without merit.


Summaries of

Diamond v. Powell

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jul 25, 1978
246 S.E.2d 233 (S.C. 1978)
Case details for

Diamond v. Powell

Case Details

Full title:Albert DIAMOND, Appellant, v. Frank POWELL, Michael R. Bryant, George R…

Court:Supreme Court of South Carolina

Date published: Jul 25, 1978

Citations

246 S.E.2d 233 (S.C. 1978)
246 S.E.2d 233

Citing Cases

South Carolina Insurance Co. v. Estrada

These exceptions are improper under Supreme Court Rule 4, § 6 for failing to contain a complete assignment of…

Moss v. Porter Brothers, Inc.

At the outset, we acknowledged Moss's contention that Porter Brothers' appeal should be dismissed for failure…