Wallace v. City of York, 21553
| Decision Date | 19 August 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 21553,21553 |
| Citation | 281 S.E.2d 487,276 S.C. 693 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | W. Lewis WALLACE, Respondent, v. The CITY OF YORK, William L. Boyd, individually and as Mayor pro tempore of theCity of York, William Louis Love, Ernest Lester Terry, Melvin L. Roberts, William M. Miller, and James Lowry, individually and as Members of the CityCouncil of theCity of York, of Whom William L. Boyd and William Louis Love, as members ofCity Council of the City of York and individually; and Melvin L. Roberts andWilliam M. Miller, individually herewith appeal, Appellants. |
David A. White, Rock Hill, for appellants.
E. N. Zeigler, Florence, for respondent.
Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod and Senior Asst. Atty. Gen. Karen LeCraft Henderson, Columbia, on behalf of Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod pursuant to the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act.
This appeal is from a circuit court order enjoining the City of York as well as the individual members of the City Council of York and their successors from conducting a public hearing to determine if respondent, as Mayor of York, should be forced to forfeit his office on the basis of several alleged violations of the Home Rule Act.
The City of York, acting through its City Council, has not appealed the lower court order and has attempted to totally withdraw from any further proceedings in the case by passing a resolution to that effect. The appeal is therefore based on any injury or prejudice suffered by appellants, who were individual members of the York City Council at the time the action was instituted. However, because the power to determine the grounds for forfeiture of office or to otherwise act resides in the Council as an entity and not in its individual members, see §§ 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 opinions on merely abstract or theoretical matters, but only to decide actual controversies injuriously affecting the rights of some party to the litigation. Accordingly, cases or issues which have become moot or academic in nature are not a proper subject of review. See generally, 5 Am.Jur.2d Appeal and Error, §§ 761, 762 (1962). This appeal is therefore dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sloan v. Greenville County
...Accordingly, cases or issues which have become moot or academic in nature are not a proper subject of review. Wallace v. City of York, 276 S.C. 693, 694, 281 S.E.2d 487, 488 (1981). In the civil context, there are three general exceptions to the mootness doctrine. First, an appellate court ......
-
Stall v. Bourne, 84-1394
...but only to decide actual controversies injuriously affecting the rights of some party to the litigation." Wallace v. City of York, 276 S.C. 693, 694, 281 S.E.2d 487, 488 (1981). Had the employer appealed, what the majority has concluded arguably could have had some substance, for then it m......
-
Sloan v. Friends of Hunley, Inc.
...Jones v. Dillon-Marion Human Res. Dev. Comm'n., 277 S.C. 533, 535, 291 S.E.2d 195, 196 (1982)); see also Wallace v. City of York, 276 S.C. 693, 694, 281 S.E.2d 487, 488 (1981). Although this Court has not addressed the issue of mootness as it pertains to FOIA, other courts have held that on......
-
Brock v. Town of Mount Pleasant
...resolution of this issue on the merits is unnecessary and we decline to address it further. See, e.g., Wallace v. City of York, 276 S.C. 693, 694, 281 S.E.2d 487, 488 (1981) (per curiam) (“The function of appellate courts is not to give opinions on merely abstract or theoretical matters, bu......