Medlin v. W. T. Grant, Inc.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Medlin v. W. T. Grant, Inc.

203 S.E.2d 426, 262 S.C. 185, 1974 S.C. LEXIS 286

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedJanuary 7, 1974

Docket19748

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 203 S.E.2d 426 (Medlin v. W. T. Grant, 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

Medlin v. W. T. Grant, Inc., 203 S.E.2d 426, 262 S.C. 185, 1974 S.C. LEXIS 286 (S.C. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

This is an action by Carl Medlin, Guardian ad Litem for Teresa Medlin, the respondent herein, against W. T. Grant, Inc., appellant, to recover damages for an alleged malicious prosecution. The appellant’s answer was a general denial and the defense of res judicata.

The appellant, pursuant to Circuit Court Rule 44, moved before The Honorable Michael D. Glenn, Judge of the Anderson County Court, for a summary judgment.

The motion was refused and the appellant prosecutes this appeal therefrom.

In the case of Geiger v. Carolina Pool Equipment Distributors, Inc., 257 S. C. 112, 184 S. E. (2d) 446, we held that an order denying a motion for summary judgment is *186 an. interlocutory decision and not directly appealable. In support of this rule we cited 4 Am. Jur. (2d) Appeal and Error, Section 104, at page 622, and also an annotation found in 15 A. L. R. (3d) 899. In the recent case of Greenwich Savings Bank v. Jones, S. C., 201 S. E. (2d) 244 (1973), we reaffirmed the foregoing rule.

The appeal is dismissed.

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

Per Curiam:

This is an action by Carl Medlin, Guardian ad Litem for Teresa Medlin, the respondent herein, against W. T. Grant, Inc., appellant, to recover damages for an alleged malicious prosecution. The appellant’s answer was a general denial and the defense of res judicata.

The appellant, pursuant to Circuit Court Rule 44, moved before The Honorable Michael D. Glenn, Judge of the Anderson County Court, for a summary judgment.

The motion was refused and the appellant prosecutes this appeal therefrom.

In the case of Geiger v. Carolina Pool Equipment Distributors, Inc., 257 S. C. 112, 184 S. E. (2d) 446, we held that an order denying a motion for summary judgment is *186 an. interlocutory decision and not directly appealable. In support of this rule we cited 4 Am. Jur. (2d) Appeal and Error, Section 104, at page 622, and also an annotation found in 15 A. L. R. (3d) 899. In the recent case of Greenwich Savings Bank v. Jones, S. C., 201 S. E. (2d) 244 (1973), we reaffirmed the foregoing rule.

The appeal is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 S.E.2d 426, 262 S.C. 185, 1974 S.C. LEXIS 286, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/medlin-v-w-t-grant-inc-sc-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack