Bryson v. State Budget & Control Board

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Bryson v. State Budget & Control Board

741 S.E.2d 760, 402 S.C. 388, 2013 S.C. LEXIS 82

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedApril 24, 2013

DocketAppellate Case No. 2012-213099; No. 27245

StatusPublished

This text of 741 S.E.2d 760 (Bryson v. State Budget & Control Board) 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

Bryson v. State Budget & Control Board, 741 S.E.2d 760, 402 S.C. 388, 2013 S.C. LEXIS 82 (S.C. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Justice HEARN.

Petitioner brought this suit in the Court’s original jurisdiction seeking a declaration that the South Carolina Budget and Control Board’s August 8, 2012 decision raising enrollee premiums for the State’s health insurance plan was a violation of the constitutionally mandated separation of powers. In Hampton v. Haley, Op. No. 27244, 2013 WL 1749391 (S.C. Sup.Ct. filed April 24, 2013), we held the Board’s decision violated the separation of powers. Accordingly, for the reasons stated therein, we enter judgment in favor of petitioner. We need not consider any of the other issues presented by petitioner because the separation of powers issue is disposi-[389]*389tive. See Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613, 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (declining to address the remaining issues where a prior issue was dispositive).

TOAL, C.J., BEATTY, and KITTREDGE, JJ., concur. PLEICONES, J., concurring in result only.

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

Justice HEARN.

Petitioner brought this suit in the Court’s original jurisdiction seeking a declaration that the South Carolina Budget and Control Board’s August 8, 2012 decision raising enrollee premiums for the State’s health insurance plan was a violation of the constitutionally mandated separation of powers. In Hampton v. Haley, Op. No. 27244, 2013 WL 1749391 (S.C. Sup.Ct. filed April 24, 2013), we held the Board’s decision violated the separation of powers. Accordingly, for the reasons stated therein, we enter judgment in favor of petitioner. We need not consider any of the other issues presented by petitioner because the separation of powers issue is disposi-[389]*389tive. See Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613, 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (declining to address the remaining issues where a prior issue was dispositive).

TOAL, C.J., BEATTY, and KITTREDGE, JJ., concur. PLEICONES, J., concurring in result only.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

741 S.E.2d 760, 402 S.C. 388, 2013 S.C. LEXIS 82, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bryson-v-state-budget-control-board-sc-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack