Hampton v. Richland County Council

370 S.E.2d 714, 296 S.C. 72, 1988 S.C. LEXIS 91
Supreme Court of South Carolina·Decided July 11, 1988·No. 22887·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinions

J. B. Ness, Acting Associate Justice:

We issued a writ of certiorari to review the opinion of the Court of Appeals reported at 292 S. C. 500, 357 S. E. (2d) 463 (Ct. App. 1987). After the careful consideration of the briefs and arguments, we have decided the writ was improvidently granted. We note, however, that the discussion of the so-called Fasano1 doctrine in the Court of Appeals’ opinion is clearly unnecessary to a resolution of the issue before the court and is therefore dicta. See Johnson v. Atlantic Coast Line R.Co., 142 S. C. 125, 140 S. E. 443 (1927).

Accordingly, the writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.

Writ dismissed.

Gregory, C. J., and Finney, and Chandler, JJ., concur. Harwell, J., concurring in separate opinion.

Footnotes

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

Hampton v. Richland County Council, 370 S.E.2d 714, 296 S.C. 72, 1988 S.C. LEXIS 91 (S.C. 1988).

370 S.E.2d 714 (Hampton v. Richland County Council) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Addison
525 S.E.2d 901 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1999)
Knowles v. City of Aiken
407 S.E.2d 639 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1991)