Hannah v. United Refrigeration Services, Inc.

409 S.E.2d 360, 305 S.C. 394, 1991 S.C. LEXIS 181
Supreme Court of South Carolina·Decided August 15, 1991·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

ORDER

This is an appeal of an order granting respondent’s motion for a jury trial under Rule 39(b), SCRCP. Appellants assert the order is directly appealable because it deprives them of a mode of trial to which they are entitled as a matter of law. We disagree.

A party’s failure to make a timely demand for a jury trial does not mean the opposing party acquires a right to have, as a matter of law, a non-jury trial. A ruling on a Rule 39(b) motion is within the discretion of the judge and is interlocutory and not directly appealable. See Rowe Furniture Corp. v. Carolina Wholesale Furniture Co., Inc., 292 S.C. 575, 357 S.E. (2d) 725 (Ct. App. 1987). Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed without prejudice.

It is so ordered.

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

Hannah v. United Refrigeration Services, Inc., 409 S.E.2d 360, 305 S.C. 394, 1991 S.C. LEXIS 181 (S.C. 1991).

409 S.E.2d 360 (Hannah v. United Refrigeration Services, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ray v. The Caroline Collection
Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2006
Patterson v. McNeill-Patterson & Associates, Inc.
441 S.E.2d 328 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1994)
Richland County v. Lowman
415 S.E.2d 433 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1992)