S.C. Department of Social Services v. Inman

Supreme Court of South Carolina

S.C. Department of Social Services v. Inman

DecidedDecember 11, 2006

Docket2006-MO-045

StatusUnpublished

This text of S.C. Department of Social Services v. Inman (S.C. Department of Social Services v. Inman) 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

S.C. Department of Social Services v. Inman, (S.C. 2006).

Pincite

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 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Supreme Court

South Carolina Department of Social Services, Respondent,

v.

Thomas Ashley Inman and Andrea Davis, Defendants,

of whom Thomas Ashley Inman is Appellant.

In the interest of: Jacob Inman, DOB: 1/12/00, a minor under the age of 18.

Appeal From Dorchester County
William J. Wylie, Jr., Family Court Judge

Memorandum Opinion No. 2006-MO-045
Heard October 17, 2006 Filed December 11, 2006

AFFIRMED

Gregory Samuel Forman, of Charleston, for Appellant.

Deborah Murdock, of Greenville, and Graves H. Wilson, Jr., of Summerville, for Respondent.

William R. Hearn, Jr., of Summerville, Guardian Ad Litem.

Denise Grainger Swope, of Charleston, for Defendants.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: Hickman v. Hickman, 301 S.C. 455, 392 S.E.2d 481 (Ct. App. 1990) (party cannot use a motion to reconsider to present an issue that could have been raised prior to the judgment but was not); Charleston County Dept. of Soc. Serv. v. Jackson, 368 S.C. 87, 627 S.E.2d 765 (Ct. App. 2006) (alleged due process violation not reviewed because the issue was not raised to or ruled upon by the family court); Kirkland v. Allcraft Steel Co., Inc., 329 S.C. 389, 496 S.E.2d 624 (1998) (a stipulation is an agreement, admission or concession made in judicial proceedings by the parties thereto or their attorneys, and it is binding upon those who make them); and State v. Johnson, 298 S.C. 496, 381 S.E.2d 732 (1989) (express consent to the admission of evidence constitutes a waiver of the issue on appeal).

AFFIRMED.

TOAL, C.J., MOORE, WALLER, BURNETT and PLEICONES, JJ., concur.

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

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Supreme Court

South Carolina Department of Social Services, Respondent,

v.

Thomas Ashley Inman and Andrea Davis, Defendants,

of whom Thomas Ashley Inman is Appellant.

In the interest of: Jacob Inman, DOB: 1/12/00, a minor under the age of 18.

Appeal From Dorchester County
William J. Wylie, Jr., Family Court Judge

Memorandum Opinion No. 2006-MO-045
Heard October 17, 2006 Filed December 11, 2006

AFFIRMED

Gregory Samuel Forman, of Charleston, for Appellant.

Deborah Murdock, of Greenville, and Graves H. Wilson, Jr., of Summerville, for Respondent.

William R. Hearn, Jr., of Summerville, Guardian Ad Litem.

Denise Grainger Swope, of Charleston, for Defendants.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: Hickman v. Hickman, 301 S.C. 455, 392 S.E.2d 481 (Ct. App. 1990) (party cannot use a motion to reconsider to present an issue that could have been raised prior to the judgment but was not); Charleston County Dept. of Soc. Serv. v. Jackson, 368 S.C. 87, 627 S.E.2d 765 (Ct. App. 2006) (alleged due process violation not reviewed because the issue was not raised to or ruled upon by the family court); Kirkland v. Allcraft Steel Co., Inc., 329 S.C. 389, 496 S.E.2d 624 (1998) (a stipulation is an agreement, admission or concession made in judicial proceedings by the parties thereto or their attorneys, and it is binding upon those who make them); and State v. Johnson, 298 S.C. 496, 381 S.E.2d 732 (1989) (express consent to the admission of evidence constitutes a waiver of the issue on appeal).

AFFIRMED.

TOAL, C.J., MOORE, WALLER, BURNETT and PLEICONES, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

S.C. Department of Social Services v. Inman, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sc-department-of-social-services-v-inman-sc-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack