Huntley v. Young

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Huntley v. Young

462 S.E.2d 860, 319 S.C. 559, 1995 S.C. LEXIS 161

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedSeptember 18, 1995

Docket24319

StatusPublished

Cited by22 cases

This text of 462 S.E.2d 860 (Huntley v. Young) 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

Huntley v. Young, 462 S.E.2d 860, 319 S.C. 559, 1995 S.C. LEXIS 161 (S.C. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

This is an appeal from an order denying appellant’s Rule 12(b)(6), SCRCP, motion to dismiss all nine causes of action alleged in respondents’ complaint. Although generally the denial of Rule 12(b)(6) motion is not directly appealable, we have allowed an appeal in cases such as this where the issue is whether a claim is properly asserted as a direct action or as a shareholder’s derivative action. Compare Moyd v. Johnson, 289 S.C. 482, 347 S.E. (2d) 97 (1986) with Hite v. Thomas & Howard Co., 305 S.C. 358, 409 S.E. (2d) 340 (1991). We now reconsider Hite, and overrule it to the extent it holds this type of order is directly appealable.

The denial of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion does not establish the law of the case nor does it preclude a party from raising the issue at a later point or points in the case. Since the order denying the Rule 12(b)(6) motion does not finally decide any issue, it is not directly appealable. See McLendon v. South Carolina Dept. of Highways and Public Transportation, 313 S.C. 525, 443 S.E. (2d) 539 (1994).

Each party shall bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees. This appeal is

Dismissed.

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

Per Curiam:

This is an appeal from an order denying appellant’s Rule 12(b)(6), SCRCP, motion to dismiss all nine causes of action alleged in respondents’ complaint. Although generally the denial of Rule 12(b)(6) motion is not directly appealable, we have allowed an appeal in cases such as this where the issue is whether a claim is properly asserted as a direct action or as a shareholder’s derivative action. Compare Moyd v. Johnson, 289 S.C. 482, 347 S.E. (2d) 97 (1986) with Hite v. Thomas & Howard Co., 305 S.C. 358, 409 S.E. (2d) 340 (1991). We now reconsider Hite, and overrule it to the extent it holds this type of order is directly appealable.

The denial of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion does not establish the law of the case nor does it preclude a party from raising the issue at a later point or points in the case. Since the order denying the Rule 12(b)(6) motion does not finally decide any issue, it is not directly appealable. See McLendon v. South Carolina Dept. of Highways and Public Transportation, 313 S.C. 525, 443 S.E. (2d) 539 (1994).

Each party shall bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees. This appeal is

Dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

462 S.E.2d 860, 319 S.C. 559, 1995 S.C. LEXIS 161, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/huntley-v-young-sc-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack