From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McGeary v. S.C. Dep't of Motor Vehicles

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals
Oct 24, 2012
Appellate Case No. 2011-200827 (S.C. Ct. App. Oct. 24, 2012)

Opinion

Appellate Case No. 2011-200827

10-24-2012

John McGeary, Appellant, v. South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles and South Carolina Department of Public Safety, Defendants, Of whom South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles is the Respondent.

Joseph M. McCulloch, Jr., and Kathy Ridenoure Schillaci, both of the Law Offices of Joseph M. McCulloch, Jr., of Columbia, for Appellant. Philip S. Porter, Frank L. Valenta, Jr., and Linda Annette Grice, all of the South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles, of Blythewood, for Respondent.


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.


Appeal From The Administrative Law Court

Deborah Brooks Durden, Administrative Law Court

Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-575


AFFIRMED


Joseph M. McCulloch, Jr., and Kathy Ridenoure Schillaci, both of the Law Offices of Joseph M. McCulloch, Jr., of Columbia, for Appellant.
Philip S. Porter, Frank L. Valenta, Jr., and Linda Annette Grice, all of the South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles, of Blythewood, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM : John McGeary appeals an order issued by the Administrative Law Court (the ALC) affirming a decision of the Office of Motor Vehicle Hearings (the Office) sustaining the suspension of his driver's license. On appeal, McGeary contends the ALC erred in affirming (1) the Office's dismissal of his case because it amounted to improper burden shifting and (2) the Office's denial of his motion to reconsider. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: 1. As to whether the ALC erred in finding the Office's dismissal did not amount to improper burden shifting: Home Med. Sys., Inc. v. S.C. Dep't of Revenue, 382 S.C. 556, 562, 677 S.E.2d 582, 586 (2009) ("As in other appellate matters, we require issue preservation in administrative appeals."); Brown v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, 348 S.C. 507, 519, 560 S.E.2d 410, 417 (2002) (noting an issue must be raised to and ruled upon by the agency to be preserved for appellate review). 2. As to whether the ALC erred in affirming the Office's denial of McGeary's motion for reconsideration: Kleckley v. Nw. Nat'l Cas. Co., 338 S.C. 131, 138, 526 S.E.2d 218, 221 (2000) (noting an issue must be addressed by both the trial court and an intermediate appellate court to be properly preserved for review).

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

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., and WILLIAMS and PIEPER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

McGeary v. S.C. Dep't of Motor Vehicles

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals
Oct 24, 2012
Appellate Case No. 2011-200827 (S.C. Ct. App. Oct. 24, 2012)
Case details for

McGeary v. S.C. Dep't of Motor Vehicles

Case Details

Full title:John McGeary, Appellant, v. South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles…

Court:STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals

Date published: Oct 24, 2012

Citations

Appellate Case No. 2011-200827 (S.C. Ct. App. Oct. 24, 2012)