Allegro, Inc. v. Emmett J. Scully, Synergetic, Inc.
| Decision Date | 28 May 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 27391.,27391. |
| Citation | 408 S.C. 200,758 S.E.2d 716 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | ALLEGRO, INC., Respondent–Petitioner, v. Emmett J. SCULLY, Synergetic, Inc., George C. Corbin, and Yvonne Yarborough, Petitioners–Respondents. Appellate Case No. 2012–213386. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS.
Robert L. Widener and Richard J. Morgan, both of McNair Law Firm, of Columbia, for Respondent–Petitioner.
Amy L. Gaffney, of Gaffney Lewis & Edwards, LLC, C. Mitchell Brown, William C. Wood, and Brian P. Crotty, all of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP, of Columbia, for Petitioners–Respondents.
Petitioner-respondent (Defendants) and respondent-petitioner (Allegro) each seek a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision in Allegro, Inc. v. Scully, 400 S.C. 33, 733 S.E.2d 114 (Ct.App.2012). We deny Allegro's petition, grant Defendants' petition, dispense with further briefing, and remand to the Court of Appeals for consideration in accordance with this opinion.
Defendants argue the Court of Appeals erred in failing to address their claims that the trial judge erred in denying their motions for directed verdict and JNOV. We agree.
“The appellate court may affirm any ruling, order, decision or judgment upon any ground(s) appearing in the Record on Appeal.” Rule 220(c), SCACR. An appellate court need not address remaining issues when disposition of a prior issue is dispositive. Earthscapes Unlimited, Inc. v. Ulbrich, 390 S.C. 609, 617, 703 S.E.2d 221, 225 (2010); see also Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc. 335 S.C. 598, 613, 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999).
The Court of Appeals' decision reversed and remanded this case for a new trial based on the trial judge's decision to admit a temporary injunction order into evidence. However, relying on Futch, supra, the Court of Appeals declined to address Defendants' claims that the trial judge erred in denying their motions for directed verdict and JNOV. Defendants argue the Court of Appeals' disposition of the new trial issue was not dispositive of their directed verdict and JNOV arguments, and therefore, the Court of Appeals should have addressed the arguments before remanding for a new trial.
We find the Court of Appeals should have addressed whether the trial judge erred in denying Defendants' directed verdict and JNOV motions. The Court of Appeals' decision to reverse and remand for a new trial based on the admission of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allegro, Inc. v. Emmett J. Scully, Synergetic, Inc.
...issues involving the directed verdict and JNOV motions. Allegro, Inc. v. Scully, 400 S.C. 33, 733 S.E.2d 114 (2012)remanded by408 S.C. 200, 758 S.E.2d 716 (2014). 2. Brown was not a party to this agreement. 3. Allegro acknowledges no claims against Synergetic were submitted to the jury; Syn......
-
State v. Jenkins
...499 (citing Allegro, Inc. v. Scully , 400 S.C. 33, 46-47, 733 S.E.2d 114, 122 (Ct. App. 2012) ), remanded on other grounds , 408 S.C. 200, 758 S.E.2d 716 (2014) ; see also Jones v. Doe , 372 S.C. 53, 62-63, 640 S.E.2d 514, 519 (Ct. App. 2006) (stating Rule 703 "does not allow for the unqual......
-
Allegro, Inc. v. Scully
...petition, granted Petitioners', and remanded to the court of appeals for consideration of the JNOV issues. Allegro, Inc. v. Scully , 408 S.C. 200, 758 S.E.2d 716 (2014). On remand, the court of appeals held the trial court erred in failing to grant directed verdict on the claims of fraud an......
- State v. Cheeks, 27390.