First Union Nat'l Bank of SC v. Hitman, Inc.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

First Union Nat'l Bank of SC v. Hitman, Inc.

418 S.E.2d 545, 308 S.C. 421, 1992 S.C. LEXIS 135

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedMay 26, 1992

Docket23663

StatusPublished

Cited by23 cases

This text of 418 S.E.2d 545 (First Union Nat'l Bank of SC v. Hitman, Inc.) 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

First Union Nat'l Bank of SC v. Hitman, Inc., 418 S.E.2d 545, 308 S.C. 421, 1992 S.C. LEXIS 135 (S.C. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

We granted certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals in First Union National Bank of South Carolina v. Hitman, et al., — S.C. — , 411 S.E. (2d) 681 (Ct. App. 1991). We affirm.

The sole question before us is whether a trial judge commits reversible error by issuing a written order which is in conflict with his prior oral ruling from the bench. We agree *422 with the analysis of the Court of Appeals, and hold that a judge is not bound by the prior oral ruling and may issue a written order which is in conflict with the oral ruling. To the extent McCranie v. Davis, 278 S.C. 513, 299 S.E. (2d) 338 (1983), is inconsistent with this opinion, it is overruled. Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeals is

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam:

We granted certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals in First Union National Bank of South Carolina v. Hitman, et al., — S.C. — , 411 S.E. (2d) 681 (Ct. App. 1991). We affirm.

The sole question before us is whether a trial judge commits reversible error by issuing a written order which is in conflict with his prior oral ruling from the bench. We agree *422 with the analysis of the Court of Appeals, and hold that a judge is not bound by the prior oral ruling and may issue a written order which is in conflict with the oral ruling. To the extent McCranie v. Davis, 278 S.C. 513, 299 S.E. (2d) 338 (1983), is inconsistent with this opinion, it is overruled. Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeals is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

418 S.E.2d 545, 308 S.C. 421, 1992 S.C. LEXIS 135, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/first-union-natl-bank-of-sc-v-hitman-inc-sc-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack