Quicken Loans, Inc. v. Wilson

823 S.E.2d 697, 425 S.C. 574
Court of Appeals of South Carolina·Decided January 9, 2019·No. Appellate Case No. 2016-001214; Opinion No. 5613·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

II. REMAINING ISSUES

Based on our finding Quicken did not violate the attorney preference statute, we decline to address its remaining arguments.

**582See Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613, 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (stating an appellate court need not address remaining issues when a decision on a prior issue is dispositive).

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the order on appeal is

REVERSED.

HUFF and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.

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

Quicken Loans, Inc. v. Wilson, 823 S.E.2d 697, 425 S.C. 574 (S.C. Ct. App. 2019).

823 S.E.2d 697 (Quicken Loans, Inc. v. Wilson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Richard W. Meier v. Mary J. Burnsed
Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2022