Moye v. Caughman, 20064
| Decision Date | 16 July 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 20064,20064 |
| Citation | 217 S.E.2d 36,265 S.C. 140 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Ben R. MOYE, Appellant, v. Ben CAUGHMAN et al., Respondents. |
Hunter & McWhirter, West Columbia, for appellant.
Sinkler, Gibbs, Simons & Guerard, Charleston, for respondents.
This case involves the constitutionality of Act No. 1181, enacted at the 1974 session of the South Carolina General Assembly, as modified by Act bearing ratification No. R4 enacted at the 1975 session of the General Assembly, which, among other things, changes the method of electing the boards of trustees of the school boards for Lexington County. The act was passed subsequent to the ratification in 1975 of amendments to the South Carolina Constitution. The appellant argues that the act violates one of those amendments, to wit, Article VIII, Section 7. The trial court ruled that matters appertaining to school districts were governed by Article XI, 'Public Education', and that the act in question did not contravene the provisions of Article XI. We agree.
Section 7 of Article VIII provides:
In Knight v. Salisbury, 262 S.C. 565, 206 S.E.2d 875 (1974) the court interpreted Section 7 as prohibiting creation of a special purpose district for recreational purposes within Dorchester County. Mr. Justice Littlejohn, after observing that Article VIII was the product of years of struggle for home rule, noted that:
The trial judge correctly reasoned that the Knight case was not applicable to school districts. Creation of different provisions for school districts does not impinge upon the 'home rule' amendment because public education is not the duty of the counties, but of the General Assembly. The General Assembly has not been mandated by any constitutional amendment to enact legislation to confer upon the counties the power to control the public school system. To the contrary, the command of new Article XI, Section 3, is 'The General Assembly shall provide for the maintenance and support of a system of free public schools.'
We take judicial notice of the fact that many school districts throughout the State are parts of two or three counties, and accordingly, it would be impossible for any one county to pass rules, regulations, or ordinances governing the school district.
The contrast between Article XI and Article VIII should be obvious. In Article XI the General Assembly is charged with the duty to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Planned Parenthood S. Atl. v. State
... ... Committee for legislative history); Moye v ... Caughman , 265 S.C. 140, 143 n.1, 217 S.E.2d 36, 38 n.1 ... (1975) (citing West ... ...
-
Planned Parenthood S. Atl. v. State
...does not preclude a statutory court of appeals, then citing the West Committee for legislative history); Moye v. Caughman , 265 S.C. 140, 143 n.1, 217 S.E.2d 36, 38 n.1 (1975) (citing West Committee Final Report regarding our discussion of article XI, section 1, which was not at issue in th......
-
Home Builders Ass'n of S.C. v. Sch. Dist. No. 2 of Dorchester Cnty.
...within the prescribed area.” Bradley, 322 S.C. at 186, 470 S.E.2d at 572 (internal citations omitted); see also Moye v. Caughman, 265 S.C. 140, 144, 217 S.E.2d 36, 38 (1975) (noting that although the appellant did not raise the issue in his brief, “[s]ection 34 does not deal with matters sp......
-
Torgerson v. Craver
...of Article VIII, has decided several cases arising under § 7: Thorne v. Seabrook, 264 S.C. 503, 216 S.E.2d 177 (1975); Moye v. Caughman, 265 S.C. 140, 217 S.E.2d 36 (1975); Knight v. Salisbury, 262 S.C. 565, 206 S.E.2d 875 (1974); Neel v. Shealy, 261 S.C. 266, 199 S.E.2d 542 (1973); none of......