Antley v. Shepherd
| Citation | 349 S.C. 600,564 S.E.2d 116 |
| Decision Date | 20 May 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 25465.,25465. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Patricia T. ANTLEY, Petitioner, v. William M. SHEPHERD, individually, and Aiken County, Respondents. |
Herbert W. Louthian, Sr., and Deborah R.J. Shupe, both of Louthian Law Firm, of Columbia, for petitioner.
William H. Davidson, II, and James M. Davis, Jr., both of Davidson, Morrison & Lindemann, PA., of Columbia, for respondents.
Petitioner contends she was wrongfully terminated from her position as Aiken County tax assessor. The circuit court granted respondents summary judgment and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Antley v. Shepherd, 340 S.C. 541, 532 S.E.2d 294 (Ct.App.2000). We granted certiorari, and now affirm as modified.
We will not recite the factual background here nor recapitulate the Court of Appeals' analysis of petitioner's claim that her termination violated public policy. We recognize, as did that court, the tension between the assessor's statutory responsibilities, and the authority of the county government to promulgate policies which impact the assessor. The Court of Appeals correctly resolved the tension in favor of the county government.
Petitioner also contends that the Court of Appeals erred in analyzing her claim to the extent it rested on an alleged violation of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).1 We agree, but affirm the conclusion in Part II of the LAW/ANAYSIS portion of the Court of Appeals' decision holding petitioner cannot prevail on her FOIA claim.
The Court of Appeals erred in finding the FOIA claim was properly before it because it had been "tried by consent" in the circuit court. In fact, the trial court held the FOIA claim was not properly before it, and refused to allow petitioner to belatedly litigate the issue. We hold that petitioner's FOIA claim was not properly raised in the circuit court and that the Court of Appeals erred in finding that it was, and in addressing the merits. We affirm the result reached by the Court of Appeals, however, which denied petitioner relief on this theory. Cf., I'On, L.L.C. v. Town of Mt. Pleasant, 338 S.C. 406, 526 S.E.2d 716 (2000)
(court can affirm for any reason appearing in the record).
For reasons given above, the decision of the Court of Appeals is
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.
1. S.C.Code Ann. §§ 30-4-10 et seq. (1991 and Supp.2001).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Angus v. Burroughs & Chapin Co.
...acted within his authority in firing an employee who was serving at the will of the official), aff'd as modified, Antley v. Shepherd, 349 S.C. 600, 564 S.E.2d 116 (2002). Angus's claim against Burroughs & Chapin, Wendel, Dowling, the Myrtle Beach Herald, and Johnson ("the remaining responde......
-
Carver-Kimm v. Reynolds
...in violation of South Carolina's freedom of information act. 532 S.E.2d 294, 296 (S.C. Ct. App. 2000), aff'd as modified, 564 S.E.2d 116 (S.C. 2002) (per curiam). court noted that the plaintiff in that case "d[id] not argue she was terminated for exposing FOIA violations," and the court thu......
-
Desmarais v. Scientific Research Corp.
...required the employee to violate the law. Antley v. Shepherd, 340 S.C. 541, 532 S.E.2d 294, 298 (2000) aff'd as modified, 349 S.C. 600, 564 S.E.2d 116 (2002) (“We decline to extend the public policy exception to situations where an employee is terminated for refusing to comply with a direct......
-
Donevant v. Town of Surfside Beach
...official to stop work, just completely shut the work down.”2 340 S.C. 541, 532 S.E.2d 294 (Ct.App.2000), aff'd as modified by349 S.C. 600, 564 S.E.2d 116 (2002). ...