Charleston Housewrecking Co. v. Canadian Universal Insurance

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Charleston Housewrecking Co. v. Canadian Universal Insurance

319 S.E.2d 338, 282 S.C. 443, 1984 S.C. LEXIS 346

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedAugust 15, 1984

Docket22156

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 319 S.E.2d 338 (Charleston Housewrecking Co. v. Canadian Universal Insurance) 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

Charleston Housewrecking Co. v. Canadian Universal Insurance, 319 S.E.2d 338, 282 S.C. 443, 1984 S.C. LEXIS 346 (S.C. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

Appellant, Canadian Universal Insurance Company asserts the trial court erroneously denied its motion for summary judgment, contending it had no duty to defend respondent, Charleston Housewrecking Company, in an action for damages instituted by a third party.

We find appellant’s sole exception to be in violation of Supreme Court Rule 4, § 6, as it does not contain a complete assignment of error. “This defect is sufficient to warrant dismissal of this appeal.” Simmons v. Johnson, 279 S. C. 146, 303 S. E. (2d) 101, 102 (1983).

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for failure to comply with Supreme Court Rule 4, § 6.

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

Per Curiam:

Appellant, Canadian Universal Insurance Company asserts the trial court erroneously denied its motion for summary judgment, contending it had no duty to defend respondent, Charleston Housewrecking Company, in an action for damages instituted by a third party.

We find appellant’s sole exception to be in violation of Supreme Court Rule 4, § 6, as it does not contain a complete assignment of error. “This defect is sufficient to warrant dismissal of this appeal.” Simmons v. Johnson, 279 S. C. 146, 303 S. E. (2d) 101, 102 (1983).

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for failure to comply with Supreme Court Rule 4, § 6.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

319 S.E.2d 338, 282 S.C. 443, 1984 S.C. LEXIS 346, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charleston-housewrecking-co-v-canadian-universal-insurance-sc-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack