South Carolina State Highway Dept. v. McKeown Food Store No. 9, 19050
| Decision Date | 11 May 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 19050,19050 |
| Parties | Ex parte SOUTH CAROLINA STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, Petitioner-Appellant, In re South Carolina State Highway Department, Condemnor, v. McKEOWN FOOD STORE NO. 9 et al., Condemnee-Respondent, and all othercondemnation appeals now pending in the Court of Common Pleas for the FifthJudicial Circuit between the Petitioner-Condemnor and various Condemnees. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod and Asst. Atty. Gen. C. Pinckney Roberts, and William F. Austin, Columbia, for appellant.
Owens T. Cobb, Jr., Columbia, for respondent.
Under a general order filed by The Honorable E. Harry Agnew, certain pretrial procedures were established to be followed in all cases set for trial before him while presiding in the Fifth Judicial Circuit from January 1st through April 1970. The effect of the order was to require counsel in each case set for trial to arrange a pretrial conference at which, among other requirements, certain information would be exchanged so as to expedite the trial and exhaust the possibilities of settlement. Pertinent here, the order provided that, at such pretrial conference, counsel shall '(6) in condemnation proceedings, exchange the valuation figures of expert witnesses and the comparable valuation data relied upon by said expert witnesses.'
The present case involved the condemnation by the South Carolina State Highway Department of lands of respondent, McKeown Food Stores No. 9, and was set for trial during the period covered by the foregoing order. The Highway Department objected to the exchange of valuation information derived from the expert witnesses and moved before Judge Agnew to have the applicable provision of his order rescinded. The motion was refused on January 14, 1970 and notice of intention to appeal from that ruling was timely served by the Highway Department.
After the notice of intention to appeal was served, the appellant, reserving its objections, exchanged with the respondent the valuation information as required by Judge Agnew's order. The case was subsequently called for trial on January 28, 1970. After all of the evidence was presented, the case was settled by the parties.
Following the settlement of the case, this appeal was perfected from the order issued by Judge Agnew on January 14, 1970. The Highway Department alleges that the order, from which the appeal is taken, affects in the same manner every Highway...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cheap-O's Truck Stop, Inc. v. Cloyd
...we find the present case was settled and the settlement is enforceable, the issue is moot. See S. C. State Highway Dep't v. McKeown Food Store No. 9, 254 S.C. 180, 183, 174 S.E.2d 342, 343 (1970) (holding a settlement ended the litigation and rendered moot the issue on appeal); Stevens v. S......
-
Williams v. Clemons, 2014-MO-002
... ... 2014-MO-002Supreme Court of South CarolinaJanuary 8, 2014 ... Belton v. State, 339 S.C. 71, 74 n.4, 529 S.E.2d 4, ... 5 ... the settlement); S.C. State Highway Dep't v. McKeown ... Food Store No. 9, 254 ... ...
-
Williams v. Clemons, Appellate Case No. 2011-202847
...record for a party agrees to settle a case, the party cannot later rescind the settlement); S.C. State Highway Dep't v. McKeown Food Store No. 9, 254 S.C. 180, 183, 174 S.E.2d 342, 343-44 (1970) (finding where a case has been "settled," the settlement ends the litigation and renders moot an......
-
Wallace v. City of York, 21553
...§§ 5-7-210, 5-13-30, S.C.Code (1976), the issues raised by appellants have been rendered moot. See South Carolina Highway Dept. v. McKeown Food Store, 254 S.C. 180, 174 S.E.2d 342 (1970); Berry v. Zahler, 220 S.C. 86, 66 S.E.2d 459 (1959). The function of appellate courts is not to give opi......