First Baptist Church of Mauldin v. City of Mauldin, No. 23649
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | TOAL; HARWELL |
| Citation | 308 S.C. 226,417 S.E.2d 592 |
| Parties | FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF MAULDIN, South Carolina; John Center as Chairman of the Deacons, Respondent, v. CITY OF MAULDIN, Appellant. . Heard |
| Docket Number | No. 23649 |
| Decision Date | 10 March 1992 |
Page 592
Center as Chairman of the Deacons, Respondent,
v.
CITY OF MAULDIN, Appellant.
Decided April 27, 1992.
Page 593
[308 S.C. 227] H. Michael Spivey, Mauldin, for appellant.
Timothy E. Madden and David H. Wilkins, Wilkins and Nelson, Greenville, for respondent.
TOAL, Justice.
The issue presented in this appeal is whether the lower court erred in ordering the closure of a road within the City of Mauldin ("City") under S.C.Code Ann. Section 57-9-10 et seq. We find the closure was proper and affirm.
The First Baptist Church of Mauldin ("Church") owns 12.7 acres which is divided, 7.8 acres on one side and 4.1 acres on the other side of an unpaved public road. The Church is the [308 S.C. 228] only property owner abutting this road. The Church's day care facility was adjacent to the road. In order to expand the day care facility, the Church sought to close the roads. After several City council members indicated they would be unwilling to close the road, the Church brought this action in Circuit Court under Section 57-9-10 of the South Carolina Code. Under this provision, any interested party may petition the court to close any road, street or highway. The court may order the road closed upon a determination that it is in the best interest of all concerned and transfer title to an appropriate party. S.C.Code Ann. Section 57-9-20 (1991).
At the hearing, the Church presented testimony supporting its need to expand. The parties stipulated the Church was an asset to the community. Additionally, the Church submitted competent testimony attesting to the dangerous use of this road which aside from church traffic served as a "cut through" for traffic trying to avoid the traffic lights on the major roadways. The road is narrow and it has a substantial curve with limited visibility. The road presented a danger to its travelers and the children attending the Church day care. There was testimony that the closure of the road would increase traffic on a parallel residential street. However, there was additional testimony that this concern would be alleviated by the use of traffic signs. It was undisputed this type of cut through traffic should be discouraged. The lower court found it was in the best interest of all concerned that the road be closed and provided for transfer of title to the Church.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. Collins Entertainment Co., Inc., No. 3:97-2136-17.
...its plain and ordinary meaning without resort to subtle or forced construction. First Baptist Church of Mauldin v. City of Mauldin, 308 S.C. 226, 417 S.E.2d 592 (1992). Only when literal application of a statute produces an absurd result will the court consider a different meaning. Southeas......
-
Anderson v. Baptist Medical Center, No. 25237.
...resorting to subtle or forced construction to limit or expand the statute's operation. First Baptist Church of Mauldin v. City of Mauldin, 308 S.C. 226, 229, 417 S.E.2d 592, 593 (1992). Construction of a statute by an agency charged with its administration will be accorded the most respectf......
-
Town of Kingstree v. Gary W. Chapman, Jr., Terilyn J. Mcclary, Waccamaw Hous., Inc., No. 5162.
...no consideration other than that of public interest could have prompted the action.First Baptist Church of Mauldin v. City of Mauldin, 308 S.C. 226, 229, 417 S.E.2d 592, 593–94 (1992) (citations omitted). “The determination of whether a roadway has been dedicated to the public is an action ......
-
Edge v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 26078.
...of fault.5 We agree. Words used in a statute should be given their plain ordinary meaning. First Baptist Church v. City of Mauldin, 308 S.C. 226, 417 S.E.2d 592 (1992). It is not reasonable to read this statute as requiring a judicial determination of fault. The plain language of the statut......
-
Johnson v. Collins Entertainment Co., Inc., No. 3:97-2136-17.
...its plain and ordinary meaning without resort to subtle or forced construction. First Baptist Church of Mauldin v. City of Mauldin, 308 S.C. 226, 417 S.E.2d 592 (1992). Only when literal application of a statute produces an absurd result will the court consider a different meaning. Southeas......
-
Anderson v. Baptist Medical Center, No. 25237.
...resorting to subtle or forced construction to limit or expand the statute's operation. First Baptist Church of Mauldin v. City of Mauldin, 308 S.C. 226, 229, 417 S.E.2d 592, 593 (1992). Construction of a statute by an agency charged with its administration will be accorded the most respectf......
-
Town of Kingstree v. Gary W. Chapman, Jr., Terilyn J. Mcclary, Waccamaw Hous., Inc., No. 5162.
...no consideration other than that of public interest could have prompted the action.First Baptist Church of Mauldin v. City of Mauldin, 308 S.C. 226, 229, 417 S.E.2d 592, 593–94 (1992) (citations omitted). “The determination of whether a roadway has been dedicated to the public is an action ......
-
Edge v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 26078.
...of fault.5 We agree. Words used in a statute should be given their plain ordinary meaning. First Baptist Church v. City of Mauldin, 308 S.C. 226, 417 S.E.2d 592 (1992). It is not reasonable to read this statute as requiring a judicial determination of fault. The plain language of the statut......
-
Roads to Nowhere in Four States: State and Local Governments in the Atlantic Southeast Facing Sea-Level Rise
...2d 439, 441 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1968). 15. N.C. Gen. Stat. §160A-299(a) (2018). 16. First Baptist Church of Mauldin v. City of Mauldin, 417 S.E.2d 592 (S.C. 1992). 17. Circle K General, Inc. v. Ga. Dep’t of Transp., 396 S.E.2d 522, 524-25 (1990). 8-2020 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 50 ELR 10......