Green By and Through Green v. Lewis Truck Lines, Inc.
| Decision Date | 04 May 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 24058,24058 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Darrell GREEN, By and Through his Guardian ad Litem, Lethea GREEN, and Lethea Green, as legal guardian for Darrell Green, Appellants, v. LEWIS TRUCK LINES, INC., Phillip Brown, and South Carolina Department of Education, Respondents. |
Ronald J. Jebaily, of Jebaily & Glass, P.A., of Florence, and Ray P. McClain, Charleston, for appellants.
Victoria T. Vaught, of Battle & Vaught, Conway, for respondents Lewis Truck Lines, Inc. and Phillip Brown.
Phillip Luke Hughes, of Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, P.A., Myrtle Beach, for respondent South Carolina Dept. of Educ.
Pursuant to Rule 35, SCRCP, the trial judge ordered Appellant Darrell Green, a minor, to undergo a mental examination by a clinical psychologist. After the guardian ad litem refused to produce her grandson for this examination, the judge held her in civil contempt, and this appeal follows. Appellant Lethea Green has now filed a petition for a writ of supersedeas to stay the contempt order. After hearing oral argument on the petition, we have decided to determine the merits of this appeal since it raises solely a question of law.
Appellants assert Rule 35 does not authorize the circuit court to order a mental examination to be conducted by a clinical psychologist. We agree and reverse the orders on appeal.
Rule 35(a) states in pertinent part that the circuit court "may order [a] party to submit to a physical or mental examination by a physician...." (emphasis added). In interpreting the language of a court rule, we apply the same rules of construction used in interpreting statutes. Garner v. Houck, --- S.C. ----, 435 S.E.2d 847 (1993); Perry v. Minit Saver Food Stores of S.C., Inc., 255 S.C. 42, 177 S.E.2d 4 (1970). Therefore, the words of Rule 35 must be given their plain and ordinary meaning without resort to subtle or forced construction to limit or expand the rule. Greenwood Mills, Inc., v. Second Injury Fund, --- S.C. ----, 433 S.E.2d 846 (1993).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Cabrera-Pena
...limit or expand the rule." State v. Brown, 344 S.C. 302, 306, 543 S.E.2d 568, 570 (Ct.App.2001) (quoting Green v. Lewis Truck Lines, Inc., 314 S.C. 303, 304, 443 S.E.2d 906, 907 (1994)). In construing the parameters of Rule 106, SCRE, our Supreme Court has looked to Rule 106 of the Federal ......
-
Hanson v. Com., Record No. 1311-97-4.
...statutory construction are instructive and provide guidance in the interpretation of courtadopted rules. Green v. Lewis Truck Lines, Inc., 314 S.C. 303, 443 S.E.2d 906, 907 (S.C. 1994); Vaughn v. Chung, 119 Wash.2d 273, 830 P.2d 668, 672 (Wash.1992). When interpreting a statute, we examine ......
-
State v. Benton
...of a court rule, we apply the same rules of construction used in interpreting statutes." Green ex rel. Green v. Lewis Truck Lines, Inc. , 314 S.C. 303, 304, 443 S.E.2d 906, 907 (1994) (per curiam). The pertinent portion of the State's mutual reciprocal disclosure request stated:The State re......
-
Pee Dee Health Care, P.A. v. Estate of Thompson
...of a court rule, we apply the same rules of construction used in interpreting statutes." Green ex rel. Green v. Lewis Truck Lines, Inc., 314 S.C. 303, 304, 443 S.E.2d 906, 907 (1994) (per curiam). "Therefore, the words of [the rule] must be given their plain and ordinary meaning without res......