Shaw Components, Inc. v. National Bank

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Shaw Components, Inc. v. National Bank

403 S.E.2d 153, 304 S.C. 114, 1991 S.C. App. LEXIS 42

CourtCourt of Appeals of South Carolina

DecidedMarch 11, 1991

Docket1632

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 403 S.E.2d 153 (Shaw Components, Inc. v. National Bank) 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.

Bluebook

Shaw Components, Inc. v. National Bank, 403 S.E.2d 153, 304 S.C. 114, 1991 S.C. App. LEXIS 42 (S.C. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Bell, Judge:

The question on appeal in these consolidated cases is whether the National Bank of South Carolina is precluded from litigating its liability for conversion and negligence against Shaw Components, Inc., and Hoffman Enterprises, Inc., under a theory of nonmutual, offensive collateral estoppel. In the circuit court, Shaw and Hoffman contended that the judgment in Richardson’s Restaurants, Inc. v. National Bank of South Carolina, No. 88-CP-43-203 (Sumter C.P., March 2,1989), precluded the Bank from relitigating these issues. The circuit judge agreed and granted partial summary judgment to Shaw and Hoffman as to liability. The Bank appeals. We reverse.

During the pendency of this appeal, we reversed the judgment against the Bank in the Richardson’s case, holding, as a matter of law, that it was not liable to Richardson’s for either conversion or negligence. See Richardson’s Restaurants, Inc. v. National Bank of South Carolina, Op. No. 1631, — S.C. —, — S.E. (2d) — (S.C. Ct. App. filed March 11, 1991). Accordingly, the doctrine of issue preclusion does not apply in these cases. See, e.g., Ornellas v. Oakley, 618 F. (2d) 1351, 1356 (9th Cir. 1980) (reversed judgment cannot serve as the basis for a disposition on the ground of res judicata or collateral estoppel).

Reversed.

Shaw and Cureton, JJ., concur.

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

Bell, Judge:

The question on appeal in these consolidated cases is whether the National Bank of South Carolina is precluded from litigating its liability for conversion and negligence against Shaw Components, Inc., and Hoffman Enterprises, Inc., under a theory of nonmutual, offensive collateral estoppel. In the circuit court, Shaw and Hoffman contended that the judgment in Richardson’s Restaurants, Inc. v. National Bank of South Carolina, No. 88-CP-43-203 (Sumter C.P., March 2,1989), precluded the Bank from relitigating these issues. The circuit judge agreed and granted partial summary judgment to Shaw and Hoffman as to liability. The Bank appeals. We reverse.

During the pendency of this appeal, we reversed the judgment against the Bank in the Richardson’s case, holding, as a matter of law, that it was not liable to Richardson’s for either conversion or negligence. See Richardson’s Restaurants, Inc. v. National Bank of South Carolina, Op. No. 1631, — S.C. —, — S.E. (2d) — (S.C. Ct. App. filed March 11, 1991). Accordingly, the doctrine of issue preclusion does not apply in these cases. See, e.g., Ornellas v. Oakley, 618 F. (2d) 1351, 1356 (9th Cir. 1980) (reversed judgment cannot serve as the basis for a disposition on the ground of res judicata or collateral estoppel).

Reversed.

Shaw and Cureton, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

403 S.E.2d 153, 304 S.C. 114, 1991 S.C. App. LEXIS 42, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shaw-components-inc-v-national-bank-scctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack