Bowen v. Bowen

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Bowen v. Bowen

337 S.E.2d 1, 287 S.C. 188, 1985 S.C. LEXIS 522

DecidedAugust 15, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 337 S.E.2d 1 (Bowen v. Bowen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bowen v. Bowen, 337 S.E.2d 1, 287 S.C. 188, 1985 S.C. LEXIS 522 (S.C. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Respondent moves to dismiss this appeal on the ground the notice of appeal was not timely served. Appellant timely served his notice of appeal within ten days after receiving written notice of the lower court’s order as required by Supreme Court Rule 1, § 1(A). The motion to dismiss is therefore denied.

Because appellant did not include in his notice of appeal the date he received written notice of the lower court’s order, the notice of appeal appeared on its face to be untimely served. Supreme Court Rule 1, § 1(E)(2), requires that the notice of appeal contain, if appropriate in the determination of the timeliness of the ap[189]*189peal, a statement of when appellant received notice of the order. Compliance with this provision would eliminate motions to dismiss such as this one. Henceforth, we shall require strict adherence to this rule.

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

ORDER

Respondent moves to dismiss this appeal on the ground the notice of appeal was not timely served. Appellant timely served his notice of appeal within ten days after receiving written notice of the lower court’s order as required by Supreme Court Rule 1, § 1(A). The motion to dismiss is therefore denied.

Because appellant did not include in his notice of appeal the date he received written notice of the lower court’s order, the notice of appeal appeared on its face to be untimely served. Supreme Court Rule 1, § 1(E)(2), requires that the notice of appeal contain, if appropriate in the determination of the timeliness of the ap[189]*189peal, a statement of when appellant received notice of the order. Compliance with this provision would eliminate motions to dismiss such as this one. Henceforth, we shall require strict adherence to this rule.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

337 S.E.2d 1, 287 S.C. 188, 1985 S.C. LEXIS 522, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bowen-v-bowen-sc-1985.