Davis v. County of Greenville, No. 24364

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtWALLER; FINNEY
Citation322 S.C. 73,470 S.E.2d 94
Docket NumberNo. 24364
Decision Date31 October 1995
PartiesSara G. DAVIS, Plaintiff, v. The COUNTY OF GREENVILLE, C. Wade Cleveland, Dick Herdklotz, Robert W. Leach, Paul B. Wickensimer, Lottie Gibson, Richard A. Ashmore, James S. Patterson, Rick Blackwell, George E. Bomar, Bob Cook, Allen Johnson, Fletcher N. Smith, Jr., all in their official capacities as members of the Greenville County Council; and Gerald Seals, in his official capacity as the County Administrator for Greenville County, Defendants. Mildred STOKES, Plaintiff, v. The COUNTY OF GREENVILLE, C. Wade Cleveland, Dick Herdklotz, Robert W. Leach, Paul B. Wickensimer, Lottie Gibson, Richard A. Ashmore, James S. Patterson, Rick Blackwell, George E. Bomar, Bob Cook, Allen Johnson, Fletcher N. Smith, Jr., all in their official capacities as members of the Greenville County Council; and Gerald Seals, in his official capacity as the County Administrator for Greenville County, Defendants. Shirley KEATON, Plaintiff, v. The COUNTY OF GREENVILLE, C. Wade Cleveland, Dick Herdklotz, Robert W. Leach, Paul B. Wickensimer, Lottie Gibson, Richard A. Ashmore, James S. Patterson, Rick Blackwell, George E. Bomar, Bob Cook, Allen Johnson, Fletcher N. Smith, Jr., all in their official capacities as members of the Greenville County Council; and Gerald Seals, in his official capacity as the County Administrator for Greenville County, Defendants. . Heard

Page 94

470 S.E.2d 94
322 S.C. 73
Sara G. DAVIS, Plaintiff,
v.
The COUNTY OF GREENVILLE, C. Wade Cleveland, Dick Herdklotz,
Robert W. Leach, Paul B. Wickensimer, Lottie Gibson, Richard
A. Ashmore, James S. Patterson, Rick Blackwell, George E.
Bomar, Bob Cook, Allen Johnson, Fletcher N. Smith, Jr., all
in their official capacities as members of the Greenville
County Council; and Gerald Seals, in his official capacity
as the County Administrator for Greenville County, Defendants.
Mildred STOKES, Plaintiff,
v.
The COUNTY OF GREENVILLE, C. Wade Cleveland, Dick Herdklotz,
Robert W. Leach, Paul B. Wickensimer, Lottie Gibson, Richard
A. Ashmore, James S. Patterson, Rick Blackwell, George E.
Bomar, Bob Cook, Allen Johnson, Fletcher N. Smith, Jr., all
in their official capacities as members of the Greenville
County Council; and Gerald Seals, in his official capacity
as the County Administrator for Greenville County, Defendants.
Shirley KEATON, Plaintiff,
v.
The COUNTY OF GREENVILLE, C. Wade Cleveland, Dick Herdklotz,
Robert W. Leach, Paul B. Wickensimer, Lottie Gibson, Richard
A. Ashmore, James S. Patterson, Rick Blackwell, George E.
Bomar, Bob Cook, Allen Johnson, Fletcher N. Smith, Jr., all
in their official capacities as members of the Greenville
County Council; and Gerald Seals, in his official capacity
as the County Administrator for Greenville County, Defendants.
No. 24364.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Heard Oct. 31, 1995.
Decided Jan. 8, 1996.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 9, 1996.

Page 95

[322 S.C. 74] W. Andrew Arnold and Suzanne E. Coe, Greenville, for plaintiff.

Glenn R. Goodwin of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, L.L.P., Greenville, for defendants.

[322 S.C. 75] ON CERTIFICATION FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WALLER, Justice:

The following questions have been certified to this Court by the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina:

1. Does a county governing body possess the power and authority pursuant to S.C.Code Ann. § 22-1-10(A) (Supp.1994) to determine the number of magistrate positions it wishes to fund every four years, subject only to a maximum number calculated in accordance with § 22-8-40(B) (1989), or does the General Assembly possess the power and authority pursuant to § 22-2-40(A) to determine the number of magistrate positions by establishing a ratio formula found in § 22-8-40(B), thereby providing the exact number or quota of magistrate positions that must be funded by each county?

2. If §§ 22-1-10(A), 22-2-40(A) and 22-8-40(B) of the South Carolina Code are construed so as to allow county governing bodies to determine the number of magistrate positions they wish to fund every four years (subject to a statutory maximum), is that construction constitutional in light of South Carolina Constitution Article V, §§ 1 & 26, and Article VIII, § 14?

FACTS

Plaintiffs were appointed by the Governor to serve as magistrates of Greenville County, 1 their terms to expire on April 30, 1994. Greenville County notified plaintiffs it was eliminating their magisterial positions effective May 1, 1994. Plaintiffs instituted this action for declaratory relief, challenging County's authority to eliminate their magisterial positions.

[322 S.C. 76] DISCUSSION

S.C.Code Ann. § 22-2-40(A) (1989) requires the General Assembly to provide for the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 practice notes
  • Retail Servs. & Sys., Inc. v. S.C. Dep't of Revenue, Appellate Case No. 2014-002728
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • March 29, 2017
    ...be construed to render them valid." Curtis v. State , 345 S.C. 557, 569, 549 S.E.2d 591, 597 (2001) (citing Davis v. Cnty. of Greenville , 322 S.C. 73, 77, 470 S.E.2d 94, 96 (1996) ). While article VIII-A, section 1 of the South Carolina Constitution contains a broad mandate to the General ......
  • Disabato v. S.C. Ass'n of Sch. Adm'rs, No. 27286.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • July 17, 2013
    ...all statutes are constitutional and will, if possible, construe a statute so as to render it constitutional. Davis v. Cnty. of Greenville, 322 S.C. 73, 77, 470 S.E.2d 94, 96 (1996).[404 S.C. 442]LAW/ANALYSIS Our General Assembly enacted the FOIA based on the premise “that it is vital in a d......
  • State v. Harrison, No. 27228.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • April 3, 2013
    ...are presumed constitutional and will, if possible, be construed so as to render them [402 S.C. 293]valid. Davis v. Cnty. of Greenville, 322 S.C. 73, 77, 470 S.E.2d 94, 96 (1996). A legislative act will not be declared unconstitutional unless its repugnance to the constitution is clear beyon......
  • Brashier v. South Carolina Dept. of Transp., No. 24665
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • May 6, 1997
    ...subject requiring statewide uniformity is effectively withdrawn from the field of local concern. See, e.g., Davis v. County of Greenville, 322 S.C. 73, 76, 470 S.E.2d 94, 96 (1996) ("Article VIII, § 14 limits the powers local governments may be granted"); Kramer v. County Council, 277 S.C. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
16 cases
  • Retail Servs. & Sys., Inc. v. S.C. Dep't of Revenue, Appellate Case No. 2014-002728
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • March 29, 2017
    ...be construed to render them valid." Curtis v. State , 345 S.C. 557, 569, 549 S.E.2d 591, 597 (2001) (citing Davis v. Cnty. of Greenville , 322 S.C. 73, 77, 470 S.E.2d 94, 96 (1996) ). While article VIII-A, section 1 of the South Carolina Constitution contains a broad mandate to the General ......
  • Disabato v. S.C. Ass'n of Sch. Adm'rs, No. 27286.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • July 17, 2013
    ...all statutes are constitutional and will, if possible, construe a statute so as to render it constitutional. Davis v. Cnty. of Greenville, 322 S.C. 73, 77, 470 S.E.2d 94, 96 (1996).[404 S.C. 442]LAW/ANALYSIS Our General Assembly enacted the FOIA based on the premise “that it is vital in a d......
  • State v. Harrison, No. 27228.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • April 3, 2013
    ...are presumed constitutional and will, if possible, be construed so as to render them [402 S.C. 293]valid. Davis v. Cnty. of Greenville, 322 S.C. 73, 77, 470 S.E.2d 94, 96 (1996). A legislative act will not be declared unconstitutional unless its repugnance to the constitution is clear beyon......
  • Brashier v. South Carolina Dept. of Transp., No. 24665
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • May 6, 1997
    ...subject requiring statewide uniformity is effectively withdrawn from the field of local concern. See, e.g., Davis v. County of Greenville, 322 S.C. 73, 76, 470 S.E.2d 94, 96 (1996) ("Article VIII, § 14 limits the powers local governments may be granted"); Kramer v. County Council, 277 S.C. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT