Food Mart v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL

471 S.E.2d 688, 322 S.C. 232, 1996 S.C. LEXIS 75
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedMay 20, 1996
Docket24427
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 471 S.E.2d 688 (Food Mart v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL) 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
Food Mart v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL, 471 S.E.2d 688, 322 S.C. 232, 1996 S.C. LEXIS 75 (S.C. 1996).

Opinion

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS

Waller, Justice:

This court granted certiorari to review the Court of Appeals’ decision dismissing petitioner Food Mart’s appeal on justiciability grounds. Food Mart v. South Carolina Dept. of Health and Environmental Control, 318 S.C. 384, 458 S.E. (2d) 47 (Ct. App. 1995). We affirm the Court of Appeals insofar as it found petitioner’s claim was moot. However, we vacate the opinion to the extent it addresses whether petitioner was required to exhaust its administrative remedies before bringing the present declaratory judgment action. This issue is procedurally barred from any appellate review because it was neither raised by the parties nor ruled on by the trial court below. Matters now argued to or ruled on by the trial court are not preserved for review. Grant v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 319 S.C. 348, 461 S.E. (2d) 388 (1995); *234 Vaught v. Waites, 300 S.C. 201, 387 S.E. (2d) 91 (Ct. App. 1989) (per curiam). 1

Affirmed in part and vacated in part.

Finney, C.J., and Toal, Moore and Burnett, JJ., concur.
1

We decline to address the constitutional issues raised to and ruled on by the trial court. In light of this decision, any discussion of the merits of petitioner’s claim would be purely academic. Furthermore, we granted certiorari specifically only to consider whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding mootness and failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

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

Related

Unifund CCR, LLC v. Shonda L. Wade
Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2023
Wardlaw v. S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs.
829 S.E.2d 718 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2019)
SMITH-HUNTER CONST. CO., INC. v. Hopson
616 S.E.2d 419 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2005)
McMillan v. South Carolina Department of Agriculture
611 S.E.2d 323 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2005)
Brown v. South Carolina Department of Health & Environmental Control
560 S.E.2d 410 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2002)
Portman v. Garbade
522 S.E.2d 830 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1999)
Peterson v. Richland County
515 S.E.2d 553 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1999)
First Union Nat. Bank of SC v. Soden
511 S.E.2d 372 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1998)
Charleston Lumber Co. v. Miller Housing Corp.
496 S.E.2d 637 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1998)
Tupper v. Dorchester County
487 S.E.2d 187 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1997)
Doe v. S.B.M.
488 S.E.2d 878 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1997)
Anonymous v. State Board of Medical Examiners
473 S.E.2d 870 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
471 S.E.2d 688, 322 S.C. 232, 1996 S.C. LEXIS 75, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/food-mart-v-south-carolina-department-of-health-and-environmental-control-sc-1996.