Hamilton v. Greyhound Lines East

316 S.E.2d 368, 281 S.C. 442, 1984 S.C. LEXIS 284
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedMay 7, 1984
Docket22094
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 316 S.E.2d 368 (Hamilton v. Greyhound Lines East) 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
Hamilton v. Greyhound Lines East, 316 S.E.2d 368, 281 S.C. 442, 1984 S.C. LEXIS 284 (S.C. 1984).

Opinion

Littlejohn, Chief Justice:

On November 30,1973, Greyhound Lines East, Defendant-Respondent, discharged Lillian L. Hamilton, Plaintiff-Appellant. On June 11, 1979, Appellant instituted this action seeking damages for breach of an employment agreement, wrongful discharge, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

This appeal is from an order of the trial judge granting an involuntary non-suit without prejudice and from a second order refusing to set aside that order. We dismiss the appeal.

Appellant’s original attorney surrendered his license to practice law shortly before a pre-trial conference scheduled for January 7,1981. After the pre-trial conference, at which appellant was not represented by counsel, the trial judge issued an order on January 12, 1981, granting Respondent’s motion for an involuntary non-suit without prejudice and giving Appellant thirty days to petition the court to set aside the order.

*444 Appellant timely petitioned the court to set aside the order. A hearing was held on March 11, 1981, at which Appellant appeared pro se and fully argued her position. The trial judge refused to set aside the order of January 12. It was not until this time that counsel, now representing Appellant, was employed. This appeal followed.

The appealing party has the burden of furnishing a sufficient record from which this court can make an intelligent review. Germain v. Nichol, 278 S. C. 508, 299 S. E. (2d) 335 (1983). Appellant has failed to carry this burden. There simply is nothing before us from which we could conclude that the trial court should be reversed.

Appeal dismissed.

Ness, Gregory, and Harwell, JJ., and J. Woodrow Lewis, Acting Associate Justice, concur.

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

Related

Dennis Gallipeau v. D. Ryan McCabe
Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2026
Lisa Weston v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP
Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2025
SCDSS v. Daniel Smalls
Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2025
Latisha Wallace v. Jawhar Hamin
Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2025
White v. Green
Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2021
Young v. Powell
Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2018
Woodson v. DLI Properties, LLC
753 S.E.2d 428 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2014)
Anderson v. Williams
Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2008
Uzenda v. Pittman
Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2006
Crestwood Golf Club, Inc. v. Potter
493 S.E.2d 826 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1997)
Town of Winnsboro v. Wiedeman-Singleton, Inc.
398 S.E.2d 500 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1990)
Cook v. Eller
380 S.E.2d 853 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1989)
Meek v. Meek
367 S.E.2d 704 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1988)
Litchfield Co. of South Carolina, Inc. v. Kiriakides
349 S.E.2d 344 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1986)
Winesett v. Winesett
338 S.E.2d 340 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1985)
Sweatt v. Norman Ex Rel. Estate of Norman
322 S.E.2d 478 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
316 S.E.2d 368, 281 S.C. 442, 1984 S.C. LEXIS 284, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamilton-v-greyhound-lines-east-sc-1984.