State v. Lockhart

Supreme Court of South Carolina

State v. Lockhart

267 S.E.2d 720, 275 S.C. 160, 1980 S.C. LEXIS 423

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedJuly 8, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 267 S.E.2d 720 (State v. Lockhart) 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

State v. Lockhart, 267 S.E.2d 720, 275 S.C. 160, 1980 S.C. LEXIS 423 (S.C. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

This is an appeal from an order of the family court transferring jurisdiction over appellant, David Lockhart, to the court of general sessions pursuant to § 14-21-540 of the South Carolina Code (1976). Respondent seeks to dismiss the appeal on grounds that the transfer order is interlocutory and therefore not appealable before a final judgment. We agree.

Appellant relies on the recent decisions of In the Interest of Sullivan, 265 S. E. (2d) 527 (1980) and In the Interest of Shaw, 265 S. E. (2d) 522 (1980) to sustain his contention that the present order is appealable before final judgment. The question of whether the transfer orders in Sullivcm and Shaw were appealable was not raised in those appeals, as it has been in this case. Those cases are therefore not controlling here. Wallace v. Interamerican Trust Company, 246 S. C. 563, 144 S. E. (2d) 813 (1965).

We hold that a family court order transferring jurisdiction over a defendant to a court of general sessions is interlocutory and not subject to immediate appeal to this Court. Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss is granted and the appeal is hereby dismissed.

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

ORDER

This is an appeal from an order of the family court transferring jurisdiction over appellant, David Lockhart, to the court of general sessions pursuant to § 14-21-540 of the South Carolina Code (1976). Respondent seeks to dismiss the appeal on grounds that the transfer order is interlocutory and therefore not appealable before a final judgment. We agree.

Appellant relies on the recent decisions of In the Interest of Sullivan, 265 S. E. (2d) 527 (1980) and In the Interest of Shaw, 265 S. E. (2d) 522 (1980) to sustain his contention that the present order is appealable before final judgment. The question of whether the transfer orders in Sullivcm and Shaw were appealable was not raised in those appeals, as it has been in this case. Those cases are therefore not controlling here. Wallace v. Interamerican Trust Company, 246 S. C. 563, 144 S. E. (2d) 813 (1965).

We hold that a family court order transferring jurisdiction over a defendant to a court of general sessions is interlocutory and not subject to immediate appeal to this Court. Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss is granted and the appeal is hereby dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 S.E.2d 720, 275 S.C. 160, 1980 S.C. LEXIS 423, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-lockhart-sc-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack