Murphy v. NATIONSBANK, NA, No. 25913.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Citation | 607 S.E.2d 80,362 S.C. 179 |
| Decision Date | 20 December 2004 |
| Parties | Loren John MURPHY, Petitioner, v. NATIONSBANK, N.A., Respondent. |
| Docket Number | No. 25913. |
362 S.C. 179
607 S.E.2d 80
v.
NATIONSBANK, N.A., Respondent
No. 25913.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Heard November 4, 2004.
Decided December 20, 2004.
Donald E. Rothwell and Scott Louis Hood, both of Irmo, for Respondent.
Justice WALLER:
We granted a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision in Murphy v. NationsBank, N.A., 354 S.C. 495, 581 S.E.2d 849 (Ct.App.2003). The Court of Appeals held that a party to an action is not entitled to mileage and a witness fee for attending a deposition. We reverse.
FACTS
Petitioner, Murphy, filed suit against Respondent, NationsBank (Bank), alleging Bank had filed a negative credit report against him. During discovery, Bank noticed Murphy's deposition. Counsel notified Bank that Murphy expected a witness fee of $25.00 plus mileage. NationsBank filed a motion to enforce discovery and, after a hearing, Judge Hayes ordered Murphy to appear at the deposition without being paid a witness fee and/or mileage. Murphy appealed to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the trial court's ruling that Murphy was not entitled to the fee and mileage.
ISSUE
Is a party to an action entitled to a witness fee and mileage for attending a deposition?
DISCUSSION
In Perry v. Minit Saver Food Stores, 255 S.C. 42, 177 S.E.2d 4 (1970), this Court answered the precise question before us. There, we held the word "witness," as used in Circuit Court Practice Rule 87, included a party such that the plaintiff was entitled to a witness fee and mileage. We stated, "[w]e are of the view that there is no ambiguity whatever in Rule 87 as to the meaning of the word `witness'. . . and that the word `witness' was intended to mean all witnesses whose depositions are taken pursuant to the rule, whether or not the witness, perchance, be a party. The word `witness' is used at
Circuit Court Rule 87 was repealed and replaced with Rule 30(a)(2), SCRCP, effective July 1, 1985. The pertinent provision of Rule 30(a)(2) provides, "[a] witness attending any deposition held pursuant to these rules shall receive for each day's attendance and for the time necessarily occupied in going to and returning from the same, $25.00 per...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Jenkins, Appellate Case No. 2019-001280
..."It is virtually impossible to determine the actual effect the judge's improper statements had on Pierce." Owens , 362 S.C. at 178, 607 S.E.2d at 80 (quoting Pierce , 289 S.C. at 434, 346 S.E.2d at 710 ). In each of those six cases—Crisp , Owens , Gunter , Pierce , Cooper , and Butler —howe......
-
State v. Jenkins, 28089
..."It is virtually impossible to determine the actual effect the judge's improper statements had on Pierce." Owens, 362 S.C. at 178, 607 S.E.2d at 80 (quoting Pierce, 289 S.C. at 434, 346 S.E.2d at 710). In each of those six cases- Crisp, Owens, Gunter, Pierce, Cooper, and Butler-however, the......
-
State v. Crisp, No. 25928.
...that decision. The comments here impermissibly did so." We reversed and granted the defendant a new sentencing proceeding. Owens at ___, 607 S.E.2d at 80; see also Gunter, supra (reversing jury verdict of guilty where defendant testified after trial judge repeatedly told him the jury would ......
-
State v. Owens, No. 25916.
...the court should never inject its personal opinion into that decision. The comments here impermissibly did so. Accordingly, Owens' 362 S.C. 179 sentence is reversed and the matter remanded for a new sentencing REVERSED AND REMANDED. TOAL, C.J., MOORE, BURNETT, JJ., and Acting Justice A. VIC......
-
State v. Jenkins, Appellate Case No. 2019-001280
..."It is virtually impossible to determine the actual effect the judge's improper statements had on Pierce." Owens , 362 S.C. at 178, 607 S.E.2d at 80 (quoting Pierce , 289 S.C. at 434, 346 S.E.2d at 710 ). In each of those six cases—Crisp , Owens , Gunter , Pierce , Cooper , and Butler —howe......
-
State v. Jenkins, 28089
..."It is virtually impossible to determine the actual effect the judge's improper statements had on Pierce." Owens, 362 S.C. at 178, 607 S.E.2d at 80 (quoting Pierce, 289 S.C. at 434, 346 S.E.2d at 710). In each of those six cases- Crisp, Owens, Gunter, Pierce, Cooper, and Butler-however, the......
-
State v. Crisp, No. 25928.
...that decision. The comments here impermissibly did so." We reversed and granted the defendant a new sentencing proceeding. Owens at ___, 607 S.E.2d at 80; see also Gunter, supra (reversing jury verdict of guilty where defendant testified after trial judge repeatedly told him the jury would ......
-
State v. Owens, No. 25916.
...the court should never inject its personal opinion into that decision. The comments here impermissibly did so. Accordingly, Owens' 362 S.C. 179 sentence is reversed and the matter remanded for a new sentencing REVERSED AND REMANDED. TOAL, C.J., MOORE, BURNETT, JJ., and Acting Justice A. VIC......