Driggers v. Shearouse

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Driggers v. Shearouse

DecidedSeptember 11, 2013

Docket2013-UP-358

StatusUnpublished

This text of Driggers v. Shearouse (Driggers v. Shearouse) 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

Driggers v. Shearouse, (S.C. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

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

Marion Driggers, Appellant,

v.

Daniel Shearouse, Honorable Jean Toal, Honorable Costa Pleicones, Honorable Donald Beatty, and Honorable John Kittredge, Respondents.

Appellate Case No. 2012-212819

Appeal From Williamsburg County R. Ferrell Cothran, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-358 Submitted August 1, 2013 – Filed September 11, 2013

AFFIRMED

Marion Driggers, pro se, of Lake City.

Elizabeth Van Doren Gray and Tina Marie Cundari, both of Sowell Gray Stepp & Laffitte, LLC, of Columbia, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Shirley's Iron Works, Inc. v. City of Union, 403 S.C. 560, 573, 743 S.E.2d 778, 785 (2013) ("An unappealed ruling is the law of the case and requires affirmance."); Jones v. Lott, 387 S.C. 339, 346, 692 S.E.2d 900, 903 (2010) ("Under the two issue rule, where a decision is based on more than one ground, the appellate court will affirm unless the appellant appeals all grounds because the unappealed ground will become the law of the case."); id. at 346, 692 S.E.2d at 904 ("It should be noted that although cases generally have discussed the 'two issue' rule in the context of the appellate treatment of general jury verdicts, the rule is applicable under other circumstances on appeal, including affirmance of orders of trial courts." (quoting Anderson v. S.C. Dep't of Highways & Pub. Transp., 322 S.C. 417, 420 n.1, 472 S.E.2d 253, 255 n.1 (1996) (quotation marks omitted))); id. at 346, 692 S.E.2d at 903 ("Ordinarily, no point will be considered which is not set forth in the statement of the issues on appeal." (internal quotation marks omitted)); Bochette v. Bochette, 300 S.C. 109, 112, 386 S.E.2d 475, 477 (Ct. App. 1989) ("An appellant may not use either oral argument or the reply brief as a vehicle to argue issues not argued in the appellant's brief.").

AFFIRMED.1

FEW, C.J., and PIEPER and KONDUROS, 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

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

Marion Driggers, Appellant,

v.

Daniel Shearouse, Honorable Jean Toal, Honorable Costa Pleicones, Honorable Donald Beatty, and Honorable John Kittredge, Respondents.

Appellate Case No. 2012-212819

Appeal From Williamsburg County R. Ferrell Cothran, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-358 Submitted August 1, 2013 – Filed September 11, 2013

AFFIRMED

Marion Driggers, pro se, of Lake City.

Elizabeth Van Doren Gray and Tina Marie Cundari, both of Sowell Gray Stepp & Laffitte, LLC, of Columbia, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Shirley's Iron Works, Inc. v. City of Union, 403 S.C. 560, 573, 743 S.E.2d 778, 785 (2013) ("An unappealed ruling is the law of the case and requires affirmance."); Jones v. Lott, 387 S.C. 339, 346, 692 S.E.2d 900, 903 (2010) ("Under the two issue rule, where a decision is based on more than one ground, the appellate court will affirm unless the appellant appeals all grounds because the unappealed ground will become the law of the case."); id. at 346, 692 S.E.2d at 904 ("It should be noted that although cases generally have discussed the 'two issue' rule in the context of the appellate treatment of general jury verdicts, the rule is applicable under other circumstances on appeal, including affirmance of orders of trial courts." (quoting Anderson v. S.C. Dep't of Highways & Pub. Transp., 322 S.C. 417, 420 n.1, 472 S.E.2d 253, 255 n.1 (1996) (quotation marks omitted))); id. at 346, 692 S.E.2d at 903 ("Ordinarily, no point will be considered which is not set forth in the statement of the issues on appeal." (internal quotation marks omitted)); Bochette v. Bochette, 300 S.C. 109, 112, 386 S.E.2d 475, 477 (Ct. App. 1989) ("An appellant may not use either oral argument or the reply brief as a vehicle to argue issues not argued in the appellant's brief.").

AFFIRMED.1

FEW, C.J., and PIEPER and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Driggers v. Shearouse, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/driggers-v-shearouse-scctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack