Wallace v. City of York

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Wallace v. City of York

281 S.E.2d 487, 276 S.C. 693, 1981 S.C. LEXIS 464

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedAugust 19, 1981

Docket21553

StatusPublished

Cited by19 cases

This text of 281 S.E.2d 487 (Wallace v. City of York) 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

Wallace v. City of York, 281 S.E.2d 487, 276 S.C. 693, 1981 S.C. LEXIS 464 (S.C. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

This appeal is from a circuit court order enjoining the City of York as well as the individual members of the City Council of York and their successors from conducting a public hearing to determine if respondent, as Mayor of York, should be forced to forfeit his office on the basis of several alleged violations of the Home Rule Act.

The City of York, acting through its City Council, has not appealed the lower court order and has attempted to totally withdraw from any further proceedings in the case by passing a resolution to that effect. The appeal is therefore based on any injury or prejudice suffered by appellants, who were individual members of the York City Council at the time the action was instituted. However, because the power to determine the grounds for forfeiture of office or to otherwise act resides in the Council as an entity and not in its individual members, see §§ 5-7-210, 5-13-30, S. C. Code (1976), the issues raised by appellants have been rendered moot. See South Carolina Highway Dept. v. McKeown Food Store, 254 S. C. 180, 174 S. E. (2d) 342 (1970); Berry v. Zahler, 220 S. C. 86, 66 S. E. (2d) 459 (1959). The function of appellate courts is not to give opinions on merely abstract or theoretical matters, but only to decide actual controversies injuriously affecting the rights of some party to the litigation. Accordingly, cases or issues which have become moot or academic in nature are not a proper subject of review. See generally, 5 Am. Jur. (2d) Appeal and Error, §§ 761, 762 (1962).

This appeal is therefore dismissed.

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

Per Curiam:

This appeal is from a circuit court order enjoining the City of York as well as the individual members of the City Council of York and their successors from conducting a public hearing to determine if respondent, as Mayor of York, should be forced to forfeit his office on the basis of several alleged violations of the Home Rule Act.

The City of York, acting through its City Council, has not appealed the lower court order and has attempted to totally withdraw from any further proceedings in the case by passing a resolution to that effect. The appeal is therefore based on any injury or prejudice suffered by appellants, who were individual members of the York City Council at the time the action was instituted. However, because the power to determine the grounds for forfeiture of office or to otherwise act resides in the Council as an entity and not in its individual members, see §§ 5-7-210, 5-13-30, S. C. Code (1976), the issues raised by appellants have been rendered moot. See South Carolina Highway Dept. v. McKeown Food Store, 254 S. C. 180, 174 S. E. (2d) 342 (1970); Berry v. Zahler, 220 S. C. 86, 66 S. E. (2d) 459 (1959). The function of appellate courts is not to give opinions on merely abstract or theoretical matters, but only to decide actual controversies injuriously affecting the rights of some party to the litigation. Accordingly, cases or issues which have become moot or academic in nature are not a proper subject of review. See generally, 5 Am. Jur. (2d) Appeal and Error, §§ 761, 762 (1962).

This appeal is therefore dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 S.E.2d 487, 276 S.C. 693, 1981 S.C. LEXIS 464, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wallace-v-city-of-york-sc-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack