Creswell v. Culbertson

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: April 5, 2017
• Docket: 2017-UP-147
• Status: Unpublished

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

Blanche G. Creswell, Appellant,

v.

Robin Culbertson, Chip Culbertson, d/b/a Asheville Cotton Company, and Asheville Cotton Company, Respondents.

Appellate Case No. 2015-001667

Appeal From Greenville County Letitia H. Verdin, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2017-UP-147 Submitted January 1, 2017 – Filed April 5, 2017

AFFIRMED

Gregory Alan Morton, of Donnan & Morton, PA, of Greenville, for Appellant.

James P. Walsh and John D. Harjehausen, both of Clarkson Walsh Terrell & Coulter, PA, of Greenville, for Respondents. PER CURIAM: Blanche G. Creswell appeals the dismissal of her personal injury action for lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendants. We affirm1 pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Moosally v. W.W. Norton & Co., 358 S.C. 320, 327, 594 S.E.2d 878, 882 (Ct. App. 2004) ("It is well-settled that the party seeking to invoke personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant via our long-arm statute bears the burden of proving the existence of personal jurisdiction."); Cockrell v. Hillerich & Bradsby Co., 363 S.C. 485, 491, 611 S.E.2d 505, 508 (2005) ("The question of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant is one which must be resolved upon the facts of each particular case."); id. ("The decision of the trial court [regarding whether it can exercise personal jurisdiction] should be affirmed unless unsupported by the evidence or influenced by an error of law."); Power Prods. & Servs. Co. v. Kozma, 379 S.C. 423, 434, 665 S.E.2d 660, 666 (Ct. App. 2008) (noting the plaintiff's failure "to make any allegations or produce any evidence a South Carolina resident purchased any product from or because of [the defendant's] website, or that the website was particularly directed at South Carolinians" as a reason to reject the argument that certain statements in the website warranted a finding that South Carolina had personal jurisdiction over the defendant).

AFFIRMED.

LOCKEMY, C.J., and KONDUROS and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.

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