Citizens for Lee County, Inc. v. Lee County, MID-AMERICAN
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | FINNEY; HARWELL |
| Citation | 416 S.E.2d 641,308 S.C. 23 |
| Parties | CITIZENS FOR LEE COUNTY, INC.; Franklin E. Weeks; and Bettie Toney, Appellants, v. LEE COUNTY, a political subdivision; Mid-American Waste Systems, Inc.; and J. Calvin Joyner, Herman H. Felix, W. Ray Alexander, Jr., C. Arthur Beasley, Luther D. Bramlette, Ben E. Watkins and Thomas H. Woodham, in their official capacity as members of the County Council of Lee County; and Barry Hickman, in his official capacity as County Administrator, Respondents.WASTE SYSTEMS, INC., Mary C. Elmore, Russell R.B. Shaw, Alice S. Stuckey, Charles G. Stuckey, Heyward A. Stuckey and James A. Stuckey, Jr., Respondents, v. LEE COUNTY, a political subdivision; and J. Calvin Joyner, Herman H. Felix, W. Ray Alexander, Jr., C. Arthur Beasley, Luther D. Bramlette, Ben E. Watkins, and Thomas H. Woodham, in their official capacity as members of the County Council of Lee County, Respondents, and Citizens for Lee County, Inc., Appellant. . Heard |
| Docket Number | MID-AMERICAN,No. 23652,23652 |
| Decision Date | 04 February 1992 |
Page 641
Bettie Toney, Appellants,
v.
LEE COUNTY, a political subdivision; Mid-American Waste
Systems, Inc.; and J. Calvin Joyner, Herman H. Felix, W.
Ray Alexander, Jr., C. Arthur Beasley, Luther D. Bramlette,
Ben E. Watkins and Thomas H. Woodham, in their official
capacity as members of the County Council of Lee County;
and Barry Hickman, in his official capacity as County
Administrator, Respondents.
MID-AMERICAN WASTE SYSTEMS, INC., Mary C. Elmore, Russell
R.B. Shaw, Alice S. Stuckey, Charles G. Stuckey,
Heyward A. Stuckey and James A. Stuckey,
Jr., Respondents,
v.
LEE COUNTY, a political subdivision; and J. Calvin Joyner,
Herman H. Felix, W. Ray Alexander, Jr., C. Arthur Beasley,
Luther D. Bramlette, Ben E. Watkins, and Thomas H. Woodham,
in their official capacity as members of the County Council
of Lee County, Respondents,
and
Citizens for Lee County, Inc., Appellant.
Decided April 22, 1992.
Rehearing Denied May 19, 1992.
Page 643
[308 S.C. 25] Belton T. Zeigler, of Lewis, Babcock & Hawkins, Columbia, for appellants.
Paul M. Fata, of Stuckey, Fata & Segars, Bishopville, for respondent Lee County and the individual respondents in their official capacity as members of the County Council of Lee County and Lee County Administrator.
Jacob H. Jennings, of Jennings and Jennings, Bishopville, and Dwight F. Drake, Stuart M. Andrews, Karen A. Crawford and James F. Rogers, of Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, Columbia, for respondent Mid-American Waste Systems, Inc.
M.M. Weinberg, Jr., of Weinberg, Brown & McDougall, Sumter, for individual respondents, Mary C. Elmore, Russell R.B. Shaw, Alice S. Stuckey, Charles G. Stuckey, Heyward A. Stuckey, and James A. Stuckey, Jr.
FINNEY, Judge:
In these two consolidated actions for declaratory relief, the appeals are from circuit court orders wherein the judge ruled in the first case that appellants, Citizens for Lee County, Inc. (CLC), Franklin E. Weeks and Bettie Toney, had failed to establish their right to assert a claim under S.C.Code Ann. § 11-35-50 (1976), and dismissed the first and second causes of action of appellants' amended complaint. In the second case, the trial court ruled that the Lee County Ordinance of November 6, 1990, was invalid and inapplicable to the amended contract of June 11, 1990, between Respondents Mid-American Waste Systems, Inc. (MAWS), and Lee County. We affirm.
On February 11, 1990, Lee County entered into a contract [308 S.C. 26] with MAWS for the construction and operation of solid waste disposal facilities. As consideration for allowing the landfill to locate in the county, Lee County would receive a portion of the expected profits from the operation and free disposal of its solid waste for 30 years. Under the terms of the agreement, MAWS would assume operation of the existing Lee County landfill and construct another privately-owned, state-of-the-art landfill in Lee County. The new facility would serve as a solid waste recycling and disposal facility and accept solid waste from throughout the eastern region of the United States. The landfill would be constructed on a two hundred acre site and could accept up to 3,500 tons of waste per day. At maximum capacity, the landfill would attain a height of approximately 165 feet.
In the spring of 1990, MAWS took over the existing landfill. In anticipation of constructing the new facility, MAWS contracted with local property owners to purchase land, conducted geological studies, and applied to the Department of Health and Environmental Control for the required permits. As public awareness of the planned landfill increased, local citizens expressed concern over the effects of locating a mega landfill in their county and questioned the actions of County Council. As a result, an amended contract was executed on June 11,
Page 644
1990, which included a prohibition on accepting waste from out-of-state sources.In October of 1990, appellants instituted a declaratory judgment action against the respondents seeking to invalidate the amended contract under S.C.Code Ann. § 4-9-130 (1982), which mandates a public hearing before selling, leasing, or entering a contract to sell or lease county-owned real property; and under S.C.Code Ann. § 11-35-50 (1976), which provides for the adoption of competitive procurement practices by state and local governmental entities.
By a referendum on November 6, 1990, the Lee County electorate adopted an ordinance (the ordinance) which required private landfill operators to obtain permits from the Lee County Planning Council and limited the amount of waste to be received by privately-owned landfills located within the county. The ordinance imposed a daily limit of 150 tons and restricted the maximum capacity to 100 million tons. County [308 S.C. 27] Council scheduled the ordinance for first, second, and third readings on November 29, 1990, December 11, 1990, and January 8, 1991, respectively.
Subsequent to the November referendum, the appellants amended their complaint to request a declaration validating the ordinance. CLC, contending the ordinance validly restricted the amended contract, was permitted to intervene in appellants' suit. In December of 1990, MAWS and respondents, Mary C. Elmore, Russell R.B. Shaw, Alice S. Stuckey, Charles G. Stuckey, Heyward A. Stuckey, and James A. Stuckey, Jr., brought an action...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sloan v. Greenville County, 3704.
...338 S.C. at 639, 528 S.E.2d at 649-50; see also Evins, 341 S.C. at 21, 532 S.E.2d at 879; Citizens for Lee County, Inc. v. Lee County, 308 S.C. 23, 29, 416 S.E.2d 641, 645 (1992); Blandon v. Coleman, 285 S.C. 472, 475, 330 S.E.2d 298, 299 (1985); Florence Morning News v. Bldg. Comm'n, 265 S......
-
Abbeville Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. State, 27466.
...Abbeville I, 335 S.C. at 65, 515 S.E.2d at 539 (citing S.C.Code Ann. § 59–20–30 (1990 & Supp.1998) ; Citizens for Lee Cnty. v. Lee Cnty., 308 S.C. 23, 29, 416 S.E.2d 641, 645 (1992) ).The most prominent issue in Abbeville I concerned Article XI, section 3 of the South Carolina Constitution,......
-
In re Blackbaud, Inc., Customer Data Breach Litigation, Case No. 3:20-mn-02972-JMC
...be implied only if the legislation was enacted for the special benefit of a private party.") (citing Citizens of Lee Cnty. v. Lee Cnty. , 308 S.C. 23, 416 S.E.2d 641 (1992) ). Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ negligence per se claims fail to the extent they are premised on violation of the HIPAA. T......
-
CAFE v. SC DEPT. OF LABOR, LICENSING, 3061.
...of the public. Ex Parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633, 58 S.Ct. 1, 82 L.Ed. 493 (1937); Baird, supra; Citizens of Lee County, Inc. v. Lee County, 308 S.C. 23, 416 S.E.2d 641 (1992); Energy Research Foundation v. Waddell, 295 S.C. 100, 102, 367 S.E.2d 419, 420 (1988); Toussaint v. State Bd. of Medica......
-
Sloan v. Greenville County, 3704.
...338 S.C. at 639, 528 S.E.2d at 649-50; see also Evins, 341 S.C. at 21, 532 S.E.2d at 879; Citizens for Lee County, Inc. v. Lee County, 308 S.C. 23, 29, 416 S.E.2d 641, 645 (1992); Blandon v. Coleman, 285 S.C. 472, 475, 330 S.E.2d 298, 299 (1985); Florence Morning News v. Bldg. Comm'n, 265 S......
-
Abbeville Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. State, 27466.
...Abbeville I, 335 S.C. at 65, 515 S.E.2d at 539 (citing S.C.Code Ann. § 59–20–30 (1990 & Supp.1998) ; Citizens for Lee Cnty. v. Lee Cnty., 308 S.C. 23, 29, 416 S.E.2d 641, 645 (1992) ).The most prominent issue in Abbeville I concerned Article XI, section 3 of the South Carolina Constitution,......
-
In re Blackbaud, Inc., Customer Data Breach Litigation, Case No. 3:20-mn-02972-JMC
...be implied only if the legislation was enacted for the special benefit of a private party.") (citing Citizens of Lee Cnty. v. Lee Cnty. , 308 S.C. 23, 416 S.E.2d 641 (1992) ). Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ negligence per se claims fail to the extent they are premised on violation of the HIPAA. T......
-
CAFE v. SC DEPT. OF LABOR, LICENSING, 3061.
...of the public. Ex Parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633, 58 S.Ct. 1, 82 L.Ed. 493 (1937); Baird, supra; Citizens of Lee County, Inc. v. Lee County, 308 S.C. 23, 416 S.E.2d 641 (1992); Energy Research Foundation v. Waddell, 295 S.C. 100, 102, 367 S.E.2d 419, 420 (1988); Toussaint v. State Bd. of Medica......