Diamond v. Powell

Decision Date25 July 1978
Docket NumberNo. 20726,20726
PartiesAlbert DIAMOND, Appellant, v. Frank POWELL, Michael R. Bryant, George R. Potter, James Samuels, Napoleon McFall, Robert Moses, Moses Brown, and the American Insurance Company, Respondents.
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court

Hammond A. Beale, Columbia, for appellant.

Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod, Deputy Atty. Gen. C. Tolbert Goolsby, Asst. Atty. Gen. Treva G. Ashworth, Samuel F. Painter of Nexsen, Pruet, Jacobs & Pollard, and David W. Robinson, II of Robinson, McFadden, Moore & Pope, Columbia, for respondents.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant brought this action against respondents seeking damages for assault and battery, false imprisonment and trespass. This appeal is from a jury verdict in favor of respondents.

After briefs were filed with this Court the respondents moved to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that the appellant's brief violates Supreme Court Rule 8, Section 2 in that the questions involved in the appeal "are not set forth in the briefest and most general terms upon one (1) page, but are presented as twelve (12) lengthy exceptions covering four and one half (41/2) pages of the appellant's brief."

Counsel for appellant has failed to frame questions as required by Rule 8, Section 2, and has instead reproduced, with slight modification, twelve of the eighteen exceptions in his brief. This violates the foregoing Rule.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 8, Section 2 of the Rules of this Court. We have, however, examined the record and have determined that this appeal would be without merit.

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Arnold v. Arnold
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • January 28, 1985
    ...334, 271 S.E.2d 311 (1980) (failure to present an issue to the trial court precludes its consideration on appeal); Diamond v. Powell, 271 S.C. 183, 246 S.E.2d 233 (1978) (failure to argue an exception in a brief amounts to an abandonment of the exception); Odom v. County of Florence, 258 S.......
  • Moss v. Porter Bros., Inc., 0961
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • May 26, 1987
    ...briefest and most general terms" on the first page of its brief. Although we have authority to dismiss its appeal [ Diamond v. Powell, 271 S.C. 183, 246 S.E.2d 233 (1978); Brown v. Mims, 250 S.C. 546, 159 S.E.2d 247 (1968) ], we elect not to do so in this instance. Porter Brothers' brief is......
  • Boyd v. Boyd, 21658
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • March 3, 1982
    ...even though they are improper under Supreme Court Rule 4, § 6 in failing to contain a complete assignment of error. Diamond v. Powell, 271 S.C. 183, 246 S.E.2d 233 (1978). The wife seeks an interest in the land under the theory of equitable Section 14-21-1020, Code of Laws of S.C. (1976) as......
  • South Carolina Ins. Co. v. Estrada, 21639
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • February 9, 1982
    ...under Supreme Court Rule 4, § 6 for failing to contain a complete assignment of error. The appeal is dismissed. Diamond v. Powell, 271 S.C. 183, 246 S.E.2d 233 (1978); Williams v. Regula, 266 S.C. 228, 222 S.E.2d 7 DISMISSED. LEWIS, C. J., and LITTLEJOHN, GREGORY and HARWELL, JJ., concur. ...

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