Category Archives: Specificity

SC Risperdal Case Still Wins Award for Unpreserved Claims

In February, the South Carolina Supreme Court issued State v. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, pointed out nine unpreserved claims, and footnoted even more. I commented on the opinion, noting that it had the most unpreserved claims that I had ever seen in a single case. The Supreme Court issued a substituted opinion last week. It continues to be a lesson in error preservation. Continue reading

SC Risperdal Case is a Trove of Unperserved Appellate Issues

Parties in South Carolina often raise appellate issues that they failed to preserve in the trial court. Until last month, four error-preservation violations were the most I had seen discussed in a single case. Then came State v. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Op. No. 27502 (S.C. Sup.Ct. filed February 25, 2015)(Shearouse  Ad.Sh. 8). In Janssen, the Supreme Court discussed nine error-preservation violations and footnoted even more. Continue reading

Specifically Request a Ruling to Appeal

Today, the Court of Appeals strictly applied a familiar principle of South Carolina error-preservation law:  a party must get a trial-court ruling on the issue that he or she seeks to appeal or make a Rule 59(e) motion to ask for a ruling. Continue reading

Preserving Issues for Appeal – Revisited

Last September, I wrote about  Atlantic Coast Builders and Contractors, LLC. v. Lewis, 396 S.C. 479, 722 S.E.2d 213 (2011). At the time, the Court addressed how specific a ground for appeal must be to preserve the issue for appeal. The Court reissued the opinion. Atlantic Coast Builders and Contractors, LLC v. Lewis, 398 S.C. 323, 730 S.E.2d 282 (2012). It is now a treasure trove of error preservation rules. Continue reading