Roe v. Bibby
This text of Roe v. Bibby (Roe v. Bibby) 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.
Opinion
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Supreme Court
Jane Roe, as parent and natural guardian of Judy Roe,
James Roe, and Joyce Roe, Minor Children Under the
Age of Eighteen, (18), Petitioners,
v.
Daniel Bibby Sr. and Michelle Bibby, Defendants,
of Whom Michelle Bibby is the Respondent.
Appellate Case No. 2014-002500
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS
Appeal From Berkeley County R. Markley Dennis, Jr., Circuit Court Judge
Opinion No. 27652
Heard November 5, 2015 – Filed August 10, 2016
DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED
Eric M. Poulin, of Anastopoulo Law Firm, LLC, of Charleston, for Petitioners.
Eugene P. Corrigan, III and J.W. Nelson Chandler, both of Corrigan & Chandler, LLC, of Charleston, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: We granted certiorari to review the court of appeals' decision in Roe v. Bibby, 410 S.C. 287, 763 S.E.2d 645 (Ct. App. 2014). We now dismiss the writ as improvidently granted.
DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED.
PLEICONES, C.J., BEATTY, KITTREDGE, HEARN, JJ., and Acting Justice Jean H. Toal, concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Roe v. Bibby, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roe-v-bibby-sc-2016.