MicroClean Technology, Inc. v. EnviroFix, Inc.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

MicroClean Technology, Inc. v. EnviroFix, Inc.

773 S.E.2d 579, 412 S.C. 608, 2015 S.C. LEXIS 205

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedJune 10, 2015

DocketAppellate Case 2013-001706; 27526

StatusPublished

This text of 773 S.E.2d 579 (MicroClean Technology, Inc. v. EnviroFix, 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

MicroClean Technology, Inc. v. EnviroFix, Inc., 773 S.E.2d 579, 412 S.C. 608, 2015 S.C. LEXIS 205 (S.C. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We granted certiorari to review the court of appeals’ opinion in MicroClean Technology, Inc. v. EnviroFix, Inc., 404 S.C. 207, 744 S.E.2d 210 (Ct.App.2013). Petitioner argues the court of appeals erred in: (1) reversing the master-in-equity’s (the Master) finding that Petitioner provided proper notice of termination of a license agreement; and (2) reversing and remanding Petitioner’s claim and delivery action based on the Master’s finding that the parties intended a security deposit serve as liquidated damages.

We reverse pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authority: Butler Contracting, Inc. v. Court Street, L.L.C., 369 S.C. 121, 127, 631 S.E.2d 252, 255-56 (2006) (“[T]he trial court’s findings of fact will not be disturbed on appeal unless wholly unsupported by the evidence or unless it clearly appears the findings were influenced or controlled by an error of law.”). We therefore remand to the Master to reinstate his order.

Further, we hereby direct the court of appeals to depublish its opinion and assign the matter an unpublished opinion number. The above opinion shall no longer have any prece-dential effect.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

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

PER CURIAM.

We granted certiorari to review the court of appeals’ opinion in MicroClean Technology, Inc. v. EnviroFix, Inc., 404 S.C. 207, 744 S.E.2d 210 (Ct.App.2013). Petitioner argues the court of appeals erred in: (1) reversing the master-in-equity’s (the Master) finding that Petitioner provided proper notice of termination of a license agreement; and (2) reversing and remanding Petitioner’s claim and delivery action based on the Master’s finding that the parties intended a security deposit serve as liquidated damages.

We reverse pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authority: Butler Contracting, Inc. v. Court Street, L.L.C., 369 S.C. 121, 127, 631 S.E.2d 252, 255-56 (2006) (“[T]he trial court’s findings of fact will not be disturbed on appeal unless wholly unsupported by the evidence or unless it clearly appears the findings were influenced or controlled by an error of law.”). We therefore remand to the Master to reinstate his order.

Further, we hereby direct the court of appeals to depublish its opinion and assign the matter an unpublished opinion number. The above opinion shall no longer have any prece-dential effect.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

773 S.E.2d 579, 412 S.C. 608, 2015 S.C. LEXIS 205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/microclean-technology-inc-v-envirofix-inc-sc-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack