Murphy v. South Carolina Dep't of Health & Envt'l Control

31 Citing cases

  1. Kiawah Development Partners v. South Carolina Department of Health & Environmental Control

    411 S.C. 16 (S.C. 2014)   Cited 67 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding if "the language of a statute or regulation directly speaks to the issue .... the court must utilize the clear meaning of the statute or regulation"

    Where the language of a regulation is plain, unambiguous, and conveys a clear and definite meaning, interpretation of the regulation is unnecessary and improper. See Murphy v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, 396 S.C. 633, 639, 723 S.E.2d 191, 195 (2012) ( “Regulations are interpreted using the same rules of construction as statutes.”); Paschal v. State Election Comm'n, 317 S.C. 434, 436, 454 S.E.2d 890, 892 (1995) (“If a statute's language is plain and unambiguous, and conveys a clear and definite meaning, there is no occasion for employing rules of statutory interpretation and the court has no right to look for or impose another meaning. Where the terms of the statute are clear, the court must apply those terms according to their literal meaning.”

  2. Partners v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control

    Appellate Case No. 2010-155629 (S.C. Dec. 10, 2014)

    Where the language of a regulation is plain, unambiguous, and conveys a clear and definite meaning, interpretation of the regulation is unnecessary and improper. See Murphy v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, 396 S.C. 633, 639, 723 S.E.2d 191, 195 (2012) ("Regulations are interpreted using the same rules of construction as statutes."); Paschal v. State Election Comm'n, 317 S.C. 434, 436, 454 S.E.2d 890, 892 (1995) ("If a statute's language is plain and unambiguous, and conveys a clear and definite meaning, there is no occasion for employing rules of statutory interpretation and the court has no right to look for or impose another meaning. Where the terms of the statute are clear, the court must apply those terms according to their literal meaning."

  3. Kiawah Dev. Partners v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control

    738 S.E.2d 455 (S.C. 2013)   Cited 1 times

    In fact, Part II, A is grounded in a description of the ALC's cogent findings regarding the erosion issues within the critical area, and the impact of the construction on marine resources and wildlife within that area. Nevertheless, bringing clarity to this point is of no moment with respect to the crucial issues of this case. Our recent decision in Murphy v. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, 396 S.C. 633, 723 S.E.2d 191 (2012), is instructive. In that case, proposed renovations to Chapin High School required filling a portion of a stream on the property.

  4. Trident Medical Center, LLC v. South Carolina Department of Health & Environmental Control

    412 S.C. 341 (S.C. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 3 times

    Chapter I.I, 2008–2009 State Health Plan (emphasis added).See also Murphy v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, 396 S.C. 633, 640, 723 S.E.2d 191, 195 (2012) (“[W]e give deference to the interpretation of a regulation by the agency charged with it[s] enforcement.” (citation omitted)); S.C. Dep't of Revenue v. Anonymous Co. A, 401 S.C. 513, 516, 678 S.E.2d 255, 257 (2009) (“ ‘The construction of a statute by an agency charged with its administration is entitled to the most respectful consideration and should not be overruled absent compelling reasons.

  5. Still v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control

    Appellate Case No. 2015-000700 (S.C. Ct. App. Feb. 8, 2017)

    1. As to Appellants' expert's testimony regarding the live weight issues: S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-610(B)(a)-(f) of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2016) (providing the appellate court may reverse or modify the ALC's decision if the substantive rights of a party have been prejudiced due to constitutional or statutory violations; an agency exceeding its authority; unlawful procedure; an error of law; a clearly erroneous view of evidence in the record; or an abuse of discretion); Murphy v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, 396 S.C. 633, 639, 723 S.E.2d 191, 194 (2012) (indicating with regard to factual issues, the ALC's findings should be affirmed if they are supported by substantial evidence in the record); id. at 639, 723 S.E.2d at 194-95 ("When finding substantial evidence to support the ALC's decision, the [c]ourt need only determine that, based on the record as a whole, reasonable minds could reach the same conclusion."); Olson v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, 379 S.C. 57, 63, 663 S.E.2d 497, 501 (Ct. App. 2008) ("The mere possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent a finding from being supported by substantial evidence."); Leventis v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, 340 S.C. 118, 136, 530 S.E.2d 643, 653 (Ct. App. 2000) (stating the DHEC Board's findings are presumptively correct and the challenging party bears the burden of proving the issuance of a permit is clearly erroneous in view of the substantial evidence on the whole record); Bryant v. Levy, 196 S.W.3d 166, 173 (Tex. App. 200

  6. Still v. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control

    2017-UP-068 (S.C. Ct. App. Feb. 8, 2017)

    We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: 1. As to Appellants' expert's testimony regarding the live weight issues: S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-610(B)(a)-(f) of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2016) (providing the appellate court may reverse or modify the ALC's decision if the substantive rights of a party have been prejudiced due to constitutional or statutory violations; an agency exceeding its authority; unlawful procedure; an error of law; a clearly erroneous view of evidence in the record; or an abuse of discretion); Murphy v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, 396 S.C. 633, 639, 723 S.E.2d 191, 194 (2012) (indicating with regard to factual issues, the ALC's findings should be affirmed if they are supported by substantial evidence in the record); id. at 639, 723 S.E.2d at 194-95 ("When finding substantial evidence to support the ALC's decision, the [c]ourt need only determine that, based on the record as a whole, reasonable minds could reach the same conclusion."); Olson v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, 379 S.C. 57, 63, 663 S.E.2d 497, 501 (Ct. App. 2008) ("The mere possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent a finding from being supported by substantial evidence."); Leventis v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, 340 S.C. 118, 136, 530 S.E.2d 643, 653 (Ct. App. 2000) (stating the DHEC Board's findings are presumptively correct and the challenging party bears the burden of proving the issuance of a permit is clearly erroneous in view of t

  7. Blackmon v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control

    No. 5911 (S.C. Ct. App. May. 25, 2022)

    Id. at 34-35, 766 S.E.2d at 718 (quoting Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 844 (1984)); see also Murphy v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, 396 S.C. 633, 640-41, 723 S.E.2d 191, 195 (2012) (deferring to the Department's "construction and application" of a regulation when it was "both reasonable and consistent with the plain language of the regulation"). "A decision is arbitrary if it is without a rational basis, is based alone on one's will and not upon any course of reasoning and exercise of judgment, is made at pleasure, without adequate determining principles, or is governed by no fixed rules or standards."

  8. Binning v. Scdhec

    795 S.E.2d 290 (S.C. Ct. App. 2016)

    "Regulations are interpreted using the same rules of construction as statutes." Murphy v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control , 396 S.C. 633, 639, 723 S.E.2d 191, 195 (2012). "If the statute or regulation ‘is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue,’ the court then must give deference to the agency's interpretation of the statute or regulation, assuming the interpretation is worthy of deference.

  9. Bruning v. Scdhec

    795 S.E.2d 290 (S.C. Ct. App. 2016)

    "Regulations are interpreted using the same rules of construction as statutes." Murphy v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control , 396 S.C. 633, 639, 723 S.E.2d 191, 195 (2012). "If the statute or regulation ‘is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue,’ the court then must give deference to the agency's interpretation of the statute or regulation, assuming the interpretation is worthy of deference.

  10. Trident Med. Ctr., LLC v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control

    Appellate Case No. 2012-213506 (S.C. Ct. App. May. 6, 2015)

    Neal v. Brown, 383 S.C. 619, 624, 682 S.E.2d 268, 270 (2009). See also Murphy v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, 396 S.C. 633, 640, 723 S.E.2d 191, 195 (2012) ("[W]e give deference to the interpretation of a regulation by the agency charged with it[s] enforcement." (citation omitted)); S.C. Dep't of Revenue v. Anonymous Co. A, 401 S.C. 513, 516, 678 S.E.2d 255, 257 (2009) ("'The construction of a statute by an agency charged with its administration is entitled to the most respectful consideration and should not be overruled absent compelling reasons.