Dealers v. Miller Development Corp.

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Dealers v. Miller Development Corp.

440 S.E.2d 386, 312 S.C. 343, 1994 S.C. App. LEXIS 2

CourtCourt of Appeals of South Carolina

DecidedJanuary 17, 1994

Docket2116

StatusPublished

This text of 440 S.E.2d 386 (Dealers v. Miller Development Corp.) 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

Dealers v. Miller Development Corp., 440 S.E.2d 386, 312 S.C. 343, 1994 S.C. App. LEXIS 2 (S.C. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Ctbriam:

Miller Development Corporation and Robert E. Miller, Jr. appeal from the order of a special referee awarding respondent Charleston Gypsum Dealers and Supply, Inc. $7,363.46 on an open account and $1,512.50 for attorney’s fees and costs. This case was set for oral argument before this court at 2:45 p.m. on Wednesday, December 8, 1993. Proper notices were mailed to the parties’ attorneys pursuant to Rule 216, SCACR and this court received no notice of conflict nor motion for continuance. While the attorney for respondent appeared and presented arguments on the issue, no such appearance was made on behalf of the appellant and appellant’s attorney made no attempt to contact this court regarding his failure to appear prior to the scheduled argument. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 218(b), SCACR, we dismiss the appeal. Costs are hereby assessed against the appellant’s attorney.

Dismissed.

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

Per Ctbriam:

Miller Development Corporation and Robert E. Miller, Jr. appeal from the order of a special referee awarding respondent Charleston Gypsum Dealers and Supply, Inc. $7,363.46 on an open account and $1,512.50 for attorney’s fees and costs. This case was set for oral argument before this court at 2:45 p.m. on Wednesday, December 8, 1993. Proper notices were mailed to the parties’ attorneys pursuant to Rule 216, SCACR and this court received no notice of conflict nor motion for continuance. While the attorney for respondent appeared and presented arguments on the issue, no such appearance was made on behalf of the appellant and appellant’s attorney made no attempt to contact this court regarding his failure to appear prior to the scheduled argument. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 218(b), SCACR, we dismiss the appeal. Costs are hereby assessed against the appellant’s attorney.

Dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

440 S.E.2d 386, 312 S.C. 343, 1994 S.C. App. LEXIS 2, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dealers-v-miller-development-corp-scctapp-1994.