Fairway Ford, Inc. v. County of Greenville, No. O

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtFINNEY; MOORE, A.J. and WILLIAM P. KEESLEY; CHANDLER; CHANDLER
Citation324 S.C. 84,476 S.E.2d 490
Decision Date07 December 1994
Docket NumberNo. 24496,No. T,No. O
PartiesFAIRWAY FORD, INC., d/b/a Fairway Ford, BMS, Inc., d/b/a Breakaway Honda, Big "O" Dodge of Greenville, Inc., d/b/a Big "O" Dodge, Brockman Chrysler-Plymouth Inc., d/b/a Brockman Chrysler-Plymouth, Fairway Management Company, d/b/a Heritage Lincoln-Mercury, Century Auto Sales, Inc., d/b/a Century BMW/Saab, Sitton Buick Company, Inc. of Greenville, d/b/a Sitton Buick, Toyota of Greenville, Inc., Gore's Corvette World, Inc., Bruce Vehicle/Equipment Auction Services, Inc., d/b/a Gary Bruce's Greenville Auto Auction, Boyce Clardy, d/b/a Liberty Motors, Bill Regan, d/b/a Regan Auto Sales, D.B. Carter Used Cars Lotne, Inc., and D.B. Carter Used Cars Lothree, Inc., for Themselves, for Motor Vehicle Dealers and Wholesalers in Greenville County and All Others Similarly Situated, Respondents, v. The COUNTY OF GREENVILLE, Robert W. Leach, Chairman of the Greenville County Council, Richard A. Ashmore, Rick Blackwell, George Bomar, C. Wade Cleveland, Bob Cook, Rev. E.D. Dixon, Richard Herdklotz, Bunk Johnson, James F. Patterson, Fletcher N. Smith, Jr. and Paul B. Wickensimer, As Members, of Greenville County Council, and William J. Estabrook, former Administrator for Greenville County, Appellants. . Heard

Page 490

476 S.E.2d 490
324 S.C. 84
FAIRWAY FORD, INC., d/b/a Fairway Ford, BMS, Inc., d/b/a
Breakaway Honda, Big "O" Dodge of Greenville, Inc., d/b/a
Big "O" Dodge, Brockman Chrysler-Plymouth Inc., d/b/a
Brockman Chrysler-Plymouth, Fairway Management Company,
d/b/a Heritage Lincoln-Mercury, Century Auto Sales, Inc.,
d/b/a Century BMW/Saab, Sitton Buick Company, Inc. of
Greenville, d/b/a Sitton Buick, Toyota of Greenville, Inc.,
Gore's Corvette World, Inc., Bruce Vehicle/Equipment Auction
Services, Inc., d/b/a Gary Bruce's Greenville Auto Auction,
Boyce Clardy, d/b/a Liberty Motors, Bill Regan, d/b/a Regan
Auto Sales, D.B. Carter Used Cars Lot No. One, Inc., and
D.B. Carter Used Cars Lot No. Three, Inc., for Themselves,
for Motor Vehicle Dealers and Wholesalers in Greenville
County and All Others Similarly Situated, Respondents,
v.
The COUNTY OF GREENVILLE, Robert W. Leach, Chairman of the
Greenville County Council, Richard A. Ashmore, Rick
Blackwell, George Bomar, C. Wade Cleveland, Bob Cook, Rev.
E.D. Dixon, Richard Herdklotz, Bunk Johnson, James F.
Patterson, Fletcher N. Smith, Jr. and Paul B. Wickensimer,
As Members, of Greenville County Council, and William J.
Estabrook, former Administrator for Greenville County, Appellants.
No. 24496.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Heard Dec. 7, 1994.
Decided Sept. 23, 1996.

Page 491

Judith S. Burk, Greenville County Attorney, Greenville, for appellants.

Harvey G. Sanders, Jr. and H. Gibert Sanders, III, of Leatherwood Walker Todd & Mann, P.C., Greenville, for respondents.

FINNEY, Justice

Greenville County appeals an order holding its ordinance imposing a $200 per plate fee on all automobile dealer and wholesaler license tags unlawful as an improper uniform service charge, and as violative of equal protection. We affirm.

A local government may lawfully impose a uniform service charge 1 if the charge meets these conditions: (1) it is imposed for a particular governmental service rather than for the general support of the government; and (2) the persons required to pay the charge derive a special benefit from the improvement made with the charge proceeds. Brown v. County of Horry, 308 S.C. 180, 417 S.E.2d 565 (1992); Hospitality Ass'n v. County of Charleston, 320 S.C. 219, 464 S.E.2d 113 (1995) (Finney, A.J., dissenting). Greenville County asserts the special benefit conferred upon dealers and wholesalers by the proceeds of this fee, which is designated for use to improve county roads, is an...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 practice notes
  • Joseph v. S.C. Dep't of Labor, Appellate Case No. 2014–001115
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • September 14, 2016
    ...policy to decline to rule on constitutional issues unless such a ruling is required.” (citing Fairway Ford, Inc. v. Cnty. of Greenville , 324 S.C. 84, 86, 476 S.E.2d 490, 491 (1996) )). Therefore, beyond the majority's analysis concerning standing, I would go only so far as applying then-Ch......
  • I'ON, LLC v. Town of Mt. Pleasant, No. 25048.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • January 17, 2000
    ...the principle that a court usually should refrain from deciding unnecessary questions. Cf. Fairway Ford, Inc. v. County of Greenville, 324 S.C. 84, 476 S.E.2d 490 (1996) (illustrating Court's "firm 338 S.C. 420 policy" of declining to reach constitutional issues when it is not necessary to ......
  • S.C. Pub. Interest Found. v. Lucas, Appellate Case No. 2015–001443.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • May 18, 2016
    ...to decline to rule on constitutional issues unless such a ruling is 786 S.E.2d 131 required”); Fairway Ford, Inc. v. Cty. of Greenville, 324 S.C. 84, 86, 476 S.E.2d 490, 491 (1996) (reciting the “firm policy of declining to reach constitutional issues unnecessary to the resolution of the ca......
  • York v. Longlands Plantation, Appellate Case No. 2018-001877
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • March 4, 2020
    ...of section 16-15-60, we need not address this issue in light of our decision. See Fairway Ford, Inc. v. Cty. of Greenville , 324 S.C. 84, 86, 476 S.E.2d 490, 491 (1996) (noting it is an appellate court's "firm policy" of not reaching the constitutionality of a statute unless necessary to re......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
13 cases
  • Joseph v. S.C. Dep't of Labor, Appellate Case No. 2014–001115
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • September 14, 2016
    ...policy to decline to rule on constitutional issues unless such a ruling is required.” (citing Fairway Ford, Inc. v. Cnty. of Greenville , 324 S.C. 84, 86, 476 S.E.2d 490, 491 (1996) )). Therefore, beyond the majority's analysis concerning standing, I would go only so far as applying then-Ch......
  • I'ON, LLC v. Town of Mt. Pleasant, No. 25048.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • January 17, 2000
    ...the principle that a court usually should refrain from deciding unnecessary questions. Cf. Fairway Ford, Inc. v. County of Greenville, 324 S.C. 84, 476 S.E.2d 490 (1996) (illustrating Court's "firm 338 S.C. 420 policy" of declining to reach constitutional issues when it is not necessary to ......
  • S.C. Pub. Interest Found. v. Lucas, Appellate Case No. 2015–001443.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • May 18, 2016
    ...to decline to rule on constitutional issues unless such a ruling is 786 S.E.2d 131 required”); Fairway Ford, Inc. v. Cty. of Greenville, 324 S.C. 84, 86, 476 S.E.2d 490, 491 (1996) (reciting the “firm policy of declining to reach constitutional issues unnecessary to the resolution of the ca......
  • York v. Longlands Plantation, Appellate Case No. 2018-001877
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • March 4, 2020
    ...of section 16-15-60, we need not address this issue in light of our decision. See Fairway Ford, Inc. v. Cty. of Greenville , 324 S.C. 84, 86, 476 S.E.2d 490, 491 (1996) (noting it is an appellate court's "firm policy" of not reaching the constitutionality of a statute unless necessary to re......
  • 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