Pascoe v. Parks

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Pascoe v. Parks

785 S.E.2d 360, 415 S.C. 643, 2016 S.C. LEXIS 92

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedApril 14, 2016

DocketAppellate Case No. 2016-000630

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 785 S.E.2d 360 (Pascoe v. Parks) 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

Pascoe v. Parks, 785 S.E.2d 360, 415 S.C. 643, 2016 S.C. LEXIS 92 (S.C. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

This matter is before the Court pursuant to a petition for a writ of mandamus. Respondent has filed a return in opposi[644]*644tion to the petition as well as a motion to seal all of the documents filed in this matter. We deny the motion to seal except as to Exhibits 1 and 3 to the return to the petition for a writ of mandamus. In addition, it is apparent from the filings in this matter that footnote 11 in Ex parte Harrell v. Attorney General, 409 S.C. 60, 760 S.E.2d 808 (2014) has been misconstrued; therefore, we take this opportunity to rescind it.

The petition for a writ of mandamus will be ruled upon after the deadline for filing any reply has expired and the Court has had sufficient time to thoroughly consider the issues raised by the petition.

s/Costa M. Pleicones, C.J.

s/Donald W. Beatty, J.

s/John W. Kittredge, J.

s/Kaye G. Hearn, J.

s/John Cannon Few, J.

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

ORDER

This matter is before the Court pursuant to a petition for a writ of mandamus. Respondent has filed a return in opposi[644]*644tion to the petition as well as a motion to seal all of the documents filed in this matter. We deny the motion to seal except as to Exhibits 1 and 3 to the return to the petition for a writ of mandamus. In addition, it is apparent from the filings in this matter that footnote 11 in Ex parte Harrell v. Attorney General, 409 S.C. 60, 760 S.E.2d 808 (2014) has been misconstrued; therefore, we take this opportunity to rescind it.

The petition for a writ of mandamus will be ruled upon after the deadline for filing any reply has expired and the Court has had sufficient time to thoroughly consider the issues raised by the petition.

s/Costa M. Pleicones, C.J.

s/Donald W. Beatty, J.

s/John W. Kittredge, J.

s/Kaye G. Hearn, J.

s/John Cannon Few, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

785 S.E.2d 360, 415 S.C. 643, 2016 S.C. LEXIS 92, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pascoe-v-parks-sc-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack