Huntley v. Young

Decision Date18 September 1995
Docket NumberNo. 24319,24319
Citation319 S.C. 559,462 S.E.2d 860
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesWilson D. HUNTLEY, Jr. and Wely, Inc., Respondents, v. Edward L. YOUNG, Appellant.

David W. Keller, Jr. and S. Porter Stewart, II, both of McGowan, Keller, Eaton & Stewart, Florence, for appellant.

James C. Cox, Jr. and James H. Lucas, both of Saleeby & Cox, P.A., Hartsville, for respondents.

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from an order denying appellant's Rule 12(b)(6), SCRCP, motion to dismiss all nine causes of action alleged in respondents' complaint. Although generally the denial of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is not directly appealable, we have allowed an appeal in cases such as this where the issue is whether a claim is properly asserted as a direct action or as a shareholder's derivative action. Compare Moyd v. Johnson, 289 S.C. 482, 347 S.E.2d 97 (1986) with Hite v. Thomas & Howard Co., 305 S.C. 358, 409 S.E.2d 340 (1991). We now reconsider Hite, and overrule it to the extent it holds this type of order is directly appealable.

The denial of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion does not establish the law of the case nor does it preclude a party from raising the issue at a later point or points in the case. Since the order denying the Rule 12(b)(6) motion does not finally decide any issue, it is not directly appealable. See McLendon v. South Carolina Dept. of Highways and Public Transportation, 313 S.C. 525, 443 S.E.2d 539 (1994).

Each party shall bear its own costs and attorneys' fees. This appeal is

DISMISSED.

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • Allied Inv. Corp. v. Jasen
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • September 1, 1997
    ...by another. Hite v. Thomas & Howard Co., 305 S.C. 358, 409 S.E.2d 340, 342 (1991), overruled on other grounds by Huntley v. Young, 319 S.C. 559, 462 S.E.2d 860 (1995). In Hite, the court found that "[w]rongful refusal to pay over the amount represented by the stock certificates may support ......
  • Kiriakides v. ATLAS FOOD SYSTEMS & SERV.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • January 31, 2000
    ...See Hite v. Thomas & Howard Co. of Florence, 305 S.C. 358, 409 S.E.2d 340 (1991), overruled on other grounds by Huntley v. Young, 319 S.C. 559, 462 S.E.2d 860 (1995) (characterizing as equitable the relief provided by S.C.Code Ann. § In an action in equity, tried by the judge alone, without......
  • Jensen v. Thompson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Dakota
    • March 22, 2018
    ...or manager. See Hite v. Thomas & Howard Co., 409 S.E.2d 340, 342 (1991) (citations omitted), overruled on other grounds by Huntley v. Young, 462 S.E.2d 860, 861 (1995) ("A shareholder may maintain an individual action only if his loss is separate and distinct from that of the corporation. A......
  • Brown v. Stewart
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • November 19, 2001
    ...& Howard Co., 305 S.C. 358, 361, 409 S.E.2d 340, 342 (1991) (citations omitted), overruled on other grounds by Huntley v. Young, 319 S.C. 559, 560, 462 S.E.2d 860, 861 (1995). "A shareholder may maintain an individual action only if his loss is separate and distinct from that of the corpora......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles

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