State v. Franks

3 Citing cases

  1. State Record Co., Inc. v. State

    332 S.C. 346 (S.C. 1998)   Cited 8 times
    Upholding order of prior restraint

    We disagree. The State premises this contention upon the holding of State v. Franks, 214 S.C. 525, 53 S.E.2d 608 (1949). Franks relied on Section 565, Code of 1942, later codified at S.C. Code Ann. ยง 15-55-10, which was repealed upon enactment of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure (SCRCP) (in effect at the time of this action).

  2. State v. Hill

    221 S.E.2d 398 (S.C. 1976)   Cited 4 times

    Messrs. Daniel R. McLeod, Atty. Gen., Joseph C. Coleman,Dep. Atty. Gen., and Joseph R. Barker and Richard P.Wilson, Asst. Attys. Gen., of Columbia, for Appellant, cite: As to the Court's having erred in issuing its restrainingorder: Section 10-2051 of the 1962 Code of Laws of South Carolina; 214 S.C. 525, 53 S.E.2d 608. As to theCourt's having erred in restraining the South Carolina HighwayDepartment pending decision of an unrelated case: 1 C.J.S., Actions, Section 133(c). As to the Court's havingerred in restraining the South Carolina Highway Departmentprior to the exhaustion of Respondent's administrativeremedies: 303 U.S. 41; 172 Colo. 144, 470 P.2d 864. As to bias on the part of the hearing officer not having beenshown: 333 U.S. 638; 170 F.2d 273. As to the Court'shaving erred in restraining Appellant from exercising itsmandatory duty to suspend under Section 46-344: 224 S.C. 263, 78 S.E.2d 382; 70 Cal.Rptr. 1; 130 N.W.2d 423; 237 A.2d 903.

  3. Greenfield v. Greenfield

    245 S.C. 604 (S.C. 1965)   Cited 11 times
    Holding "the inherent powers of a court, which are essential to its existence and protection and to the due administration of justice within the scope of the jurisdiction expressly conferred, do not depend upon express constitutional or legislative grant"

    03 S.C. 456, 27 S.E.2d 803; 30 S.C. 270, 9 S.E. 110; 62 S.C. 426, 40 S.E. 891; 21 C.J.S. 553, Sec. 307; 79 P.2d 525; 44 P.2d 567; 111 P.2d 728. Messrs. Grier, McDonald, Todd, Burns Bradford and James D. Jefferies, of Greenwood, for Respondents, cite: As to the jurisdiction of Probate Courts, which are unquestionablyCourts of inferior and limited jurisdiction: 111 S.C. 205, 97 S.E. 58; 214 S.C. 247, 52 S.E.2d 192; 117 F. Supp. 884; 15 S.C. 236; 132 S.C. 45; 21 C.J.S., Courts, Sec. 301. As to Title 15, Section 448, South CarolinaCode of Laws, 1962, operating to grant the judge ofprobate jurisdiction in all matters testamentary and of administration,but a distinct ground of equitable relief is notincluded in this general grant of such jurisdiction: 165 S.C. 1, 162 S.E. 623; 190 S.C. 300, 2 S.E.2d 792; 132 S.C. 45, 128 S.E. 40: 12 S.C. 556; 18 S.C. 338. As tothe injunctive or restraining order being defective: 87 S.C. 301; Bailey's Eq. 187; 28 Am. Jur., Injunctions, Sec. 38; 77 S.C. 416; 214 S.C. 525, 53 S.E.2d 608; 165 S.C. 1. As to a temporary restraining order and/or injunctionnot being utilized to transfer possession of, or title to, personalproperty: 27 S.C. 408; 84 S.C. 37; 217 S.C. 361; 4 S.C. 388; 70 S.C. 543, 50 S.E. 206; 80 S.C. 557, 61 S.E. 1012; Am. Jur. 531, Sec. 38, Injunctions; Mecham and Atkinson, Cases and Materials on Wills and Administration (4th Ed.) 591; 33 C.J.S., Executors and Administrators, Sec. 169. April 21, 1965.