Paul v. SCDEW
This text of Paul v. SCDEW (Paul v. SCDEW) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals
Kerry Paul, Appellant,
v.
South Carolina Department of Employment and Workforce, Respondent.
Appellate Case No. 2015-000244
Appeal From Richland County Robert E. Hood, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-433 Submitted September 1, 2016 – Filed October 19, 2016
AFFIRMED
Lucy Clark Sanders and Nancy Bloodgood, both of Bloodgood & Sanders, LLC, of Charleston, for Appellant.
Christi Porter Cox, of Hamilton Martens, LLC, of Rock Hill, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76, 497 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1998) ("It is axiomatic that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial [court] to be preserved for appellate review."); Staubes v. City of Folly Beach, 339 S.C. 406, 412, 529 S.E.2d 543, 546 (2000) ("Error preservation requirements are intended 'to enable the [trial] court to rule properly after it has considered all relevant facts, law, and arguments.'" (quoting I'On, L.L.C. v. Town of Mt. Pleasant, 338 S.C. 406, 422, 526 S.E.2d 716, 724 (2000))); id. ("Without an initial ruling by the trial court, a reviewing court simply would not be able to evaluate whether the trial court committed error."); West v. Newberry Elec. Coop., 357 S.C. 537, 543, 593 S.E.2d 500, 503 (Ct. App. 2004) (finding an issue that is neither addressed by the trial court in its final order nor raised by way of a Rule 59(e), SCRCP, motion is not preserved for review).
AFFIRMED.1
LOCKEMY, C.J., and KONDUROS and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.
1 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Paul v. SCDEW, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paul-v-scdew-scctapp-2016.