Charleston Harbor v. Davis

CourtCourt of Appeals of South Carolina
DecidedFebruary 17, 2016
Docket2016-UP-061
StatusUnpublished

This text of Charleston Harbor v. Davis (Charleston Harbor v. Davis) 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
Charleston Harbor v. Davis, (S.C. Ct. App. 2016).

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

Charleston Harbor Resort & Marina, Respondent,

v.

Paul Davis, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2014-001345

Appeal From Charleston County Mikell R. Scarborough, Master-in-Equity

Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-061 Submitted December 1, 2015 – Filed February 17, 2016

AFFIRMED

Paul Davis, of Newberry, pro se.

William A. Scott, of Pedersen & Scott, PC, of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Rule 4(d)(1), SCRCP (allowing service of process upon an individual "by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to him personally . . . or by delivering a copy to an agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process"); Delta Apparel, Inc. v. Farina, 406 S.C. 257, 267, 750 S.E.2d 615, 620 (Ct. App. 2013) (noting South Carolina courts have "never required exacting compliance with the rules to effect service of process" (quoting Roche v. Young Bros. of Florence, 318 S.C. 207, 209-10, 456 S.E.2d 897, 899 (1995))); id. ("Rather, [courts] inquire whether the plaintiff has sufficiently complied with the rules such that the court has personal jurisdiction of the defendant and the defendant has notice of the proceedings." (quoting Roche, 318 S.C. at 210, 456 S.E.2d at 899)); Roberson v. S. Fin. of S.C., Inc., 365 S.C. 6, 10, 615 S.E.2d 112, 115 (2005) ("An agent's authority is composed of his or her actual authority, whether express or implied, together with the apparent authority which the principal by his or her conduct is precluded from denying.").

AFFIRMED.1

FEW, C.J., and KONDUROS and LOCKEMY, 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

Related

Roche v. Young Bros., Inc., of Florence
456 S.E.2d 897 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1995)
Roberson v. Southern Finance of South Carolina, Inc.
615 S.E.2d 112 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2005)
Delta Apparel, Inc. v. Farina
750 S.E.2d 615 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Charleston Harbor v. Davis, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charleston-harbor-v-davis-scctapp-2016.