SCE&G v. Anson Construction

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedMarch 1, 2017
Docket2017-MO-003
StatusUnpublished

This text of SCE&G v. Anson Construction (SCE&G v. Anson Construction) 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
SCE&G v. Anson Construction, (S.C. 2017).

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 Supreme Court

South Carolina Electric & Gas Co., Respondent,

v.

Anson Construction Co., Inc., Petitioner.

Appellate Case No. 2015-001456

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS

Appeal from Charleston County J. C. Nicholson, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Memorandum Opinion No. 2017-MO-003 Heard January 11, 2017 – Filed March 1, 2017

REVERSED AND REMANDED

Everett A. Kendall, II, of Sweeny, Wingate & Barrow, P.A., and James Eric Cavanaugh, both of Columbia, for Petitioner.

John A. Massalon and I. Ryan Neville, both of Wills Massalon & Allen, LLC, of Charleston, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: We granted a writ of certiorari to review the court of appeals' decision1 affirming the circuit court's grant of summary judgment to Respondent South Carolina Electric and Gas Co. Having carefully reviewed the record, we are firmly persuaded there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding the terms of the parties' contract. Because of this factual dispute, the entry of summary judgment was improper. See, e.g., Cunningham v. Helping Hands, Inc., 352 S.C. 485, 491, 575 S.E.2d 549, 552 (2003) ("Summary judgment is appropriate only if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." (citations omitted)); cf. Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Tolbert, 387 S.C. 280, 283, 692 S.E.2d 523, 524 (2010) ("Summary judgment should be denied where the non-moving party submits a mere scintilla of evidence." (citing Hancock v. Mid-South Mgmt. Co., 381 S.C. 326, 330, 673 S.E.2d 801, 803 (2009))). The court of appeals' decision is therefore reversed and this case is remanded to the circuit court for trial.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

BEATTY, C.J., KITTREDGE, HEARN, JJ., and Acting Justices Clifton Newman and Edward W. Miller, concur.

1 S.C. Elec. & Gas Co. v. Anson Constr. Co., Op. No. 2015-UP-248 (S.C. Ct. App. filed May 13, 2015).

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

Related

Cunningham v. Helping Hands, Inc.
575 S.E.2d 549 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2003)
Hancock v. Mid-South Management Co., Inc.
673 S.E.2d 801 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2009)
Zurich American Insurance v. Tolbert
692 S.E.2d 523 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
SCE&G v. Anson Construction, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sceg-v-anson-construction-sc-2017.