An earlier post explained that the party taking the appeal is responsible to make sure that the Record on Appeal is complete. The appellate courts will likely affirm the lower court ruling if the Appellant does not give the appellate courts an adequate record to review. Beverly S. v. Kayla R., 395 S.C. 399, 718 S.E.2d 224 (Ct.App. 2011).
This post covers how to prepare the Record. The next one discusses what the Record may and may not include. Continue reading
This post finishes up the discussion on standards of review — how much deference the appellate courts pay to the rulings being appealed. Earlier posts discussed de novo review for questions of law, the any evidence review of factual findings in actions at law, the preponderance review for factual findings in actions in equity, and the abuse of discretion review for most pre-trial and trial rulings.
This post covers appeals from administrative agencies, particularly the Workers Compensation Commission. Continue reading
The posts on standards of review have covered the difference between questions of law and issues of fact, and between actions that are tried at law and in equity. This post explains the standards of review for certain pre-trial and trial rulings. Continue reading
This post and the next three explore the South Carolina appellate courts’ varying degrees of deference to trial court rulings.This post addresses divides the universe of possible appellate issues into issues of law and questions of fact, explains why the two are treated differently, and offers a tip on how the use the difference. The next three posts cover the differing standards of review for factual findings made in actions at law and in equity, certain rulings made pre-trial and at trial, and factual findings by administrative agencies. Continue reading
This week, the Supreme Court held that an order requiring a plaintiff to substitute and replace the defendant sued with other defendants is immediately appealable. The Court concluded that such an order affects a plaintiff’s right to choose her defendant and effectively discontinues the action against the defendant ordered out of the case. The order is thus appealable under S.C. Code Ann.§ 14-3-330(2)(a).
In reaching this conclusion, the Court relied in part on Chester v. South Carolina Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 388 S.C. 343, 698 S.E.2d 559 (2010). In that case, I was able to persuade the Court to reaffirm a plaintiff’s common law right to pick among potential defendants to sue.
The case is Neeltec Enterprises, Inc. v. Long, 397 S.C. 563, 725 S.E.2d 926 (2012).