Williams v. Bordon's, Inc., No. 21144

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM
Citation262 S.E.2d 881,274 S.C. 275
PartiesChristopher WILLIAMS, a minor by G.A.L., Esborn Williams, Respondent, v. BORDON'S, INC., Appellant. Cinderella WILLIAMS, a minor by G.A.L., Esborn Williams, Respondent, v. BORDON'S, INC., Appellant.
Docket NumberNo. 21144
Decision Date07 February 1980

Page 881

262 S.E.2d 881
274 S.C. 275
Christopher WILLIAMS, a minor by G.A.L., Esborn Williams, Respondent,
v.
BORDON'S, INC., Appellant.
Cinderella WILLIAMS, a minor by G.A.L., Esborn Williams, Respondent,
v.
BORDON'S, INC., Appellant.
No. 21144.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Feb. 7, 1980.

Page 882

[274 S.C. 276] W. Paul Cantrell, Jr. of Holmes, Thomson, Logan & Cantrell, Charleston, for appellant.

Jackson V. Gregory, Walterboro, for respondents.

[274 S.C. 277] PER CURIAM:

This appeal involves (1) the constitutionality of Section 2-1-150, 1976 South Carolina Code of Laws, as amended, granting immunity from court appearances to lawyer-legislators during legislative sessions and committee meetings; and (2) whether appellant was entitled to a continuance because of the absence of its attorney while he was attending a Session of the South Carolina General Assembly.

Separate actions were brought by respondents in the then existing, but subsequently abolished, Civil and Criminal Court of Colleton County to recover damages allegedly sustained from eating a food product manufactured by appellant. Answers were filed by appellant in each case through its attorneys Holmes, Thomson, Logan & Cantrell of Charleston, South Carolina, with Mr. Cantrell, a member of the South Carolina General Assembly, handling the matter for that firm. The case was subsequently set for trial and appellant's counsel notified. A request by appellant's counsel for a continuance, because of the claimed necessity for his appearances at Sessions of the General Assembly, was denied. The cases were consolidated and proceeded to trial in the absence

Page 883

of appellant or its counsel, resulting in a verdict for respondents in each case. This appeal seeks a new trial solely upon the ground that error was committed by the trial judge in denying appellant's request for a continuance.

In deciding the present issue, we must first determine the proper basis for the assertion by a lawyer-legislator of immunity from court appearances, where it is claimed that the court appearance conflicts with the performance of legislative duties, i. e., whether the continuance must be granted as a matter of right or is within the discretion of the trial judge.

Appellant's counsel contends that he was entitled to the continuance in this case as a matter of right and relies upon [274 S.C. 278] Code Section 2-1-150, which, as originally adopted in 1971, granted absolute immunity to lawyer-legislators from court appearances during legislative sessions and, at any other time, to attend legislative committee meetings. Section 2-1-150 was amended at the 1979 Session of the General Assembly (Act No. 178), effective August 1, 1979, which was subsequent to the decision from which this appeal arises, but prior to the filing of the briefs herein. Since appellant relies upon the amended version of Section 2-1-150, we confine our consideration to its provisions. This section now states:

Notwithstanding any other provisions of law or rule of court, no...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 practice notes
  • Hundley ex rel. Hundley v. Rite Aid, No. 3126.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • February 28, 2000
    ...carries with it the inherent power to control the order of its business to safeguard the rights of litigants." Williams v. Bordon's, Inc., 274 S.C. 275, 279, 262 S.E.2d 881, 883 The court bears a great responsibility when signing a scheduling order which grants this special request, because......
  • State v. Langford, No. 27195.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • December 20, 2012
    ...and to determine the order in which cases shall be heard is derived from its power to hear and decide cases.” Williams v. Bordon's, Inc., 274 S.C. 275, 279, 262 S.E.2d 881, 883 (1980). “This adjudicative power of the court carries with it the inherent power to control the order of its busin......
  • Collier v. Poe, No. 69739
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • May 20, 1987
    ...of the outcome, would change all witnesses' concerns, or that there were no other legal remedies available. 20 Williams v. Burdon's, Inc. 274 S.C. 275, 262 S.E.2d 881 (1980); McConnell v. State, 227 Ark. 988, 302 S.W.2d 805 (1957); Johnson v. Theodoron, 324 Ill. 543, 155 N.E. 481 (1927); Ky......
  • State v. Langford, Appellate Case No. 2010-173128
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • November 21, 2012
    ...and to determine the order in which cases shall be heard is derived from its power to hear and decide cases." Williams v. Bordon's, Inc., 274 S.C. 275, 279, 262 S.E.2d 881, 883 (1980). "This adjudicative power of the court carries with it the inherent power to control the order of its busin......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
23 cases
  • Hundley ex rel. Hundley v. Rite Aid, No. 3126.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • February 28, 2000
    ...carries with it the inherent power to control the order of its business to safeguard the rights of litigants." Williams v. Bordon's, Inc., 274 S.C. 275, 279, 262 S.E.2d 881, 883 The court bears a great responsibility when signing a scheduling order which grants this special request, because......
  • State v. Langford, No. 27195.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • December 20, 2012
    ...and to determine the order in which cases shall be heard is derived from its power to hear and decide cases.” Williams v. Bordon's, Inc., 274 S.C. 275, 279, 262 S.E.2d 881, 883 (1980). “This adjudicative power of the court carries with it the inherent power to control the order of its busin......
  • Collier v. Poe, No. 69739
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • May 20, 1987
    ...of the outcome, would change all witnesses' concerns, or that there were no other legal remedies available. 20 Williams v. Burdon's, Inc. 274 S.C. 275, 262 S.E.2d 881 (1980); McConnell v. State, 227 Ark. 988, 302 S.W.2d 805 (1957); Johnson v. Theodoron, 324 Ill. 543, 155 N.E. 481 (1927); Ky......
  • State v. Langford, Appellate Case No. 2010-173128
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • November 21, 2012
    ...and to determine the order in which cases shall be heard is derived from its power to hear and decide cases." Williams v. Bordon's, Inc., 274 S.C. 275, 279, 262 S.E.2d 881, 883 (1980). "This adjudicative power of the court carries with it the inherent power to control the order of its busin......
  • 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