Mathis v. South Carolina State Highway Dept.

Decision Date04 April 1973
Docket NumberNo. 19605,19605
Citation195 S.E.2d 713,260 S.C. 344
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesRobert Lee MATHIS, Jr., Respondent, v. The SOUTH CAROLINA STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, Appellant.

Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod and Asst. Atty. Gen. John B. Grimball, Columbia, for appellant.

W. Richard McClellion, Jr., Anderson, for respondent.

MOSS, Chief Justice.

Robert Lee Mathis, Jr., was convicted on May 18, 1970, in the General Sessions Court of Anderson County, of driving an automobile while under the influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of Section 46--343, of the Code, the same being a second offense. For some unexplained reason, the Clerk of the Court for Anderson County, in violation of Section 46--347 of the Code, did not report such conviction to the South Carolina State Highway Department until March 7, 1972. It further appears that on March 23, 1972, the South Carolina State Highway Department, pursuant to Section 46--348, notified the respondent that his license to drive an automobile was suspended for one year from said date. The respondent also says that at the time of his sentence, he was informed by the presiding judge that his driver's license would be suspended for one year and that he did not drive an automobile during that period of time. However, during all of such time, he retained the physical possession of his official driver's license.

Robert Lee Mathis, Jr., the respondent herein, instituted this proceeding against the South Carolina State Highway Department, the appellant herein, alleging the foregoing facts and praying that the Court issue an order directing the appellant to revoke the suspension dated March 23, 1972, and reinstate his driving privilege.

The case came on for hearing before the Honorable Michael D. Glenn, Judge of the Family and County Court of Anderson County, who after a hearing, issued his order granting the relief sought. This appeal followed.

The appeal in this case came on to be heard by this Court at the 1973 March term. Upon the call of the case, we were advised that the respondent would be entitled to the return of his driver's license on March 23, 1973. This date now having passed, and the respondent being entitled to the return of his driver's license, has rendered the issues made by this appeal, moot and academic. There remains no actual controversy between the parties. We have held that this Court will not pass on moot and academic questions or make an adjudication where there...

To continue reading

Request your trial
109 cases
  • Sloan v. Greenville County
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • December 8, 2003
    ...reviewing Court to grant effectual relief. Curtis, 345 S.C. at 567, 549 S.E.2d at 596 (quoting Mathis v. South Carolina State Highway Dept., 260 S.C. 344, 346, 195 S.E.2d 713, 715 (1973)). The function of appellate courts is not to give opinions on merely abstract or theoretical matters, bu......
  • Abbeville Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. State
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • November 12, 2014
    ...true when some event occurs making it impossible for [the] reviewing Court to grant effectual relief.” Mathis v. S.C. State Highway Dep't, 260 S.C. 344, 346, 195 S.E.2d 713, 715 (1973) ; see also Curtis, 345 S.C. at 567, 549 S.E.2d at 596. An appellate court may take jurisdiction, despite m......
  • Cheap-O's Truck Stop, Inc. v. Cloyd
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • June 3, 2002
    ...effectual relief.'" Byrd v. Irmo High School, 321 S.C. 426, 431, 468 S.E.2d 861, 864 (1996) (quoting Mathis v. S.C. State Highway Dep't, 260 S.C. 344, 346, 195 S.E.2d 713, 715 (1973)). Because we find the present case was settled and the settlement is enforceable, the issue is moot. See S. ......
  • Ex parte Moore
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • June 4, 2001
    ...moot when judgment, if rendered, will have no practical legal effect upon the existing controversy. Mathis v. South Carolina State Highway Dep't, 260 S.C. 344, 195 S.E.2d 713 (1973), cited in Arnold v. Association of Citadel Men, 337 S.C. 265, 523 S.E.2d 757 (1999). This is true when some e......
  • 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