Dove v. Gold Kist, Inc., No. 24034

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtTOAL; HARWELL
Citation314 S.C. 235,442 S.E.2d 598
PartiesCecil DOVE, Employee, Appellant, v. GOLD KIST, INC., Employer and Self-Insured, Respondent. . Heard
Docket NumberNo. 24034
Decision Date05 January 1994

Page 598

442 S.E.2d 598
314 S.C. 235
Cecil DOVE, Employee, Appellant,
v.
GOLD KIST, INC., Employer and Self-Insured, Respondent.
No. 24034.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Heard Jan. 5, 1994.
Decided March 21, 1994.

Page 599

[314 S.C. 236] James E. Chaffin, Jr., Columbia, for appellant.

Richard B. Kale, Jr., of Haynesworth, Marion, McKay & Guerard, Greenville, for respondent.

TOAL, Justice:

Relying on Hedgepath v. Stanley Home Products, 265 S.C. 248, 217 S.E.2d 782 (1975), the circuit court dismissed Cecil Dove's ("Dove") appeal from the order of the Workers' Compensation Commission for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Having determined that Hedgepath must be overruled, we reverse and remand.

FACTS

Cecil Dove was employed by Gold Kist, Inc., a Georgia corporation, in its mill located in Lexington, South Carolina. Dove sustained an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment at the Gold Kist Lexington County mill. Gold Kist admitted liability and paid Dove temporary disability. A dispute arose between Gold Kist and Dove, and Dove filed a claim with the Workers' Compensation Commission.

A hearing was conducted in Lexington County, South Carolina. The single commissioner found Dove twenty-five percent disabled. The full commission affirmed the single commissioner[314 S.C. 237] but gave Gold Kist credit for the temporary benefits previously paid to Dove. Dove filed a notice of appeal in the Circuit Court in Richland County. Gold Kist filed a motion to dismiss claiming the Circuit Court in Richland County lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

Consistent with Hedgepath v. Stanley Home Products, 265 S.C. 248, 217 S.E.2d 782 (1975), the Circuit Court sitting in Richland County sustained Gold Kist's motion and dismissed the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. This appeal followed.

LAW/ANALYSIS

In Hedgepath v. Stanley Home Products, 265 S.C. 248, 217 S.E.2d 782 (1975), this Court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of an appeal from the Workers' Compensation Commission for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where the appeal was filed in a county other than where the accident occurred or where the employer has his principle place of business. Twice this Court has reaffirmed its holding in Hedgepath that the statute in question requires the circuit court to dismiss an appeal from the Workers' Compensation Commission if it determines the venue is incorrect. Williams v. South Carolina Department of Wildlife, 295 S.C. 98, 367 S.E.2d

Page 600

418 (1987); Chitty v. Allied Chemical Co., 285 S.C. 106, 328 S.E.2d 476 (1985).

We granted Dove's motion to argue against the precedent of Hedgepath, supra. Dove argues that S.C.Code Ann. § 42-17-60 (Supp.1993) grants subject matter jurisdiction to the Circuit Court of South Carolina and also defines the proper venue. We agree. 1

The distinction between subject matter jurisdiction and venue is an important one in the law. See Triangle Auto Spring Co. v. Gromlovitz, 270 S.C. 386, 242 S.E.2d 430 (1978) (distinguishing subject matter jurisdiction and venue and effect of each). The terms are not synonymous. Bambrick v. Bambrick, 165 So.2d 449, 455 (Fla.App.1964). Subject matter jurisdiction is "the power to hear and determine[314 S.C. 238] cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong." Bank of Babylon v. Quirk, 192 Conn. 447, 472 A.2d 21, 22 (1984); accord Balcon, Inc. v. Sadler, 36 N.C.App. 322, 244 S.E.2d 164 (1978) (citing 21 C.J.S. Courts § 23, pp. 36-37). On the other hand, venue is the place or geographical location of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
102 practice notes
  • Al-Shabazz v. State, No. 24995.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • August 23, 1999
    ...v. South Carolina Dep't of Wildlife, 295 S.C. 98, 99, 367 S.E.2d 418, 419 (1987), overruled on other grounds, Dove v. Gold Kist, Inc., 314 S.C. 235, 442 S.E.2d 598 (1994); 1972 Capri v. South Carolina Dep't of Highways and Pub. Transp., 274 S.C. 88, 91, 261 S.E.2d 307, 308 The appellant mus......
  • Eagle Container v. County of Newberry, No. 4037.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • December 15, 2005
    ...is the power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong." Dove v. Gold Kist, Inc., 314 S.C. 235, 237, 442 S.E.2d 598, 600 (1994) (citations omitted). In comparison, "[t]he basic rationale of the doctrine of ripeness is to prevent courts, thr......
  • Washington v. Whitaker, No. 24174
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • February 16, 1994
    ...in the court which has the authority and power to determine the type of action at issue. See Dove v. Gold Kist, Inc., --- S.C. ----, 442 S.E.2d 598 Second, the punitive damage award against City was not unduly excessive or against the weight of the evidence. The trial judge conducted a post......
  • Whaley v. CSX Transp., Inc., No. 25935.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • February 2, 2005
    ...does not "reside" in Hampton County. We agree. 362 S.C. 468 Venue is the place or geographical location of trial. Dove v. Gold Kist, Inc., 314 S.C. 235, 238, 442 S.E.2d 598, 600 (1994); see also In re Asbestosis Cases, 276 S.C. 579, 581, 281 S.E.2d 112, 115 (1981) (noting that "venue" refer......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
102 cases
  • Al-Shabazz v. State, No. 24995.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • August 23, 1999
    ...v. South Carolina Dep't of Wildlife, 295 S.C. 98, 99, 367 S.E.2d 418, 419 (1987), overruled on other grounds, Dove v. Gold Kist, Inc., 314 S.C. 235, 442 S.E.2d 598 (1994); 1972 Capri v. South Carolina Dep't of Highways and Pub. Transp., 274 S.C. 88, 91, 261 S.E.2d 307, 308 The appellant mus......
  • Eagle Container v. County of Newberry, No. 4037.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • December 15, 2005
    ...is the power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong." Dove v. Gold Kist, Inc., 314 S.C. 235, 237, 442 S.E.2d 598, 600 (1994) (citations omitted). In comparison, "[t]he basic rationale of the doctrine of ripeness is to prevent courts, thr......
  • Washington v. Whitaker, No. 24174
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • February 16, 1994
    ...in the court which has the authority and power to determine the type of action at issue. See Dove v. Gold Kist, Inc., --- S.C. ----, 442 S.E.2d 598 Second, the punitive damage award against City was not unduly excessive or against the weight of the evidence. The trial judge conducted a post......
  • Whaley v. CSX Transp., Inc., No. 25935.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • February 2, 2005
    ...does not "reside" in Hampton County. We agree. 362 S.C. 468 Venue is the place or geographical location of trial. Dove v. Gold Kist, Inc., 314 S.C. 235, 238, 442 S.E.2d 598, 600 (1994); see also In re Asbestosis Cases, 276 S.C. 579, 581, 281 S.E.2d 112, 115 (1981) (noting that "venue" refer......
  • 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