Bishop v. City of Union

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Bishop v. City of Union

DecidedApril 26, 2010

Docket2010-UP-260

StatusUnpublished

This text of Bishop v. City of Union (Bishop v. City of Union) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bishop v. City of Union, (S.C. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

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.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Sarah Beth Bishop, Appellant,

v.

The City of Union, The Union Department of Public Safety, and Police Chief Sam White, Respondents.

Appeal From Union County
John C. Hayes, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-260
Submitted April 1, 2010 Filed April 26, 2010

AFFIRMED

N. Douglas Brannon, of Spartanburg, for Appellant.

Donna S. Givens and C. Edward Rawl, Jr., both of Columbia; and William Whitney, Jr., of Union, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM: Sarah Beth Bishop filed suit against the City of Union, The Union Department of Public Safety, and Police Chief Sam White (collectively Respondents) under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act for negligence and negligent supervision in connection with a series of assaults in which Bishop was the victim. Bishop appeals the circuit court's dismissal of her suit as untimely filed, arguing she did not discover she had a claim against Respondents until February 15, 2006. We affirm^[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: S.C. Code Ann. § 15-78-110 (2005) ("[A]ny action brought pursuant to [the Tort Claims Act] is forever barred unless an action is commenced within two years after the date the loss was or should have been discovered."); Wiggins v. Edwards, 314 S.C. 126, 128, 442 S.E.2d 169, 170 (1994) (requiring an injured party to "act with some promptness where the facts and circumstances of an injury would put a person of common knowledge and experience on notice that some right of his has been invaded or that some claim against another party might exist").

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, THOMAS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Sarah Beth Bishop, Appellant,

v.

The City of Union, The Union Department of Public Safety, and Police Chief Sam White, Respondents.

Appeal From Union County
John C. Hayes, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-260
Submitted April 1, 2010 Filed April 26, 2010

AFFIRMED

N. Douglas Brannon, of Spartanburg, for Appellant.

Donna S. Givens and C. Edward Rawl, Jr., both of Columbia; and William Whitney, Jr., of Union, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM: Sarah Beth Bishop filed suit against the City of Union, The Union Department of Public Safety, and Police Chief Sam White (collectively Respondents) under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act for negligence and negligent supervision in connection with a series of assaults in which Bishop was the victim. Bishop appeals the circuit court's dismissal of her suit as untimely filed, arguing she did not discover she had a claim against Respondents until February 15, 2006. We affirm^[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: S.C. Code Ann. § 15-78-110 (2005) ("[A]ny action brought pursuant to [the Tort Claims Act] is forever barred unless an action is commenced within two years after the date the loss was or should have been discovered."); Wiggins v. Edwards, 314 S.C. 126, 128, 442 S.E.2d 169, 170 (1994) (requiring an injured party to "act with some promptness where the facts and circumstances of an injury would put a person of common knowledge and experience on notice that some right of his has been invaded or that some claim against another party might exist").

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, THOMAS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Bishop v. City of Union, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bishop-v-city-of-union-scctapp-2010.

Opinion

N. Douglas Brannon, of Spartanburg, for Appellant.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack