Hendrix v. Eastern Distribution, Inc.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Hendrix v. Eastern Distribution, Inc.

464 S.E.2d 112, 320 S.C. 218, 11 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 310, 1995 S.C. LEXIS 190

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedNovember 6, 1995

Docket24342

StatusPublished

Cited by42 cases

This text of 464 S.E.2d 112 (Hendrix v. Eastern Distribution, 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

Hendrix v. Eastern Distribution, Inc., 464 S.E.2d 112, 320 S.C. 218, 11 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 310, 1995 S.C. LEXIS 190 (S.C. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

We granted a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Ap *219 peals’ opinion in Hendrix v. Eastern Distribution, Inc., 316 S.C. 34, 446 S.E. (2d) 440 (Ct. App. 1994). We affirm in result.

Hendrix instituted a breach of contract action against her former employer, Eastern Distribution, Inc. The jury returned a verdict for Hendrix. Eastern appealed, claiming the trial court should have granted its motion for a directed verdict. The Court of Appeals found this issue procedurally barred from review and, accordingly, affirmed the judgment in Hendrix’ favor. The Court of Appeals nonetheless went on to address the merits of the issue.

Since the issue concerning Eastern’s motion for a directed verdict was not preserved for review, it should not have been addressed. Smith v. Phillips, 318 S.C. 453, 458 S.E. (2d) 427 (1995) (Davis Adv. Sh. No. 13 at 18); Connolly v. People’s Life Insurance Co., 299 S.C. 348, 384 S.E. (2d) 738 (1989). Accordingly, we affirm in result only. We vacate the Court of Appeals’ opinion to the extent it addressed an issue which was not preserved.

Affirmed in result.

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