Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
CAROLINA WATER SERVICE, INC., Petitioner, v. LEXINGTON COUNTY JOINT MUNICIPAL WATER AND SEWER COMMISSION, Respondent.
Town of Lexington, Petitioner, v. Lexington County Joint Municipal Water and Sewer Commission, Respondent.
Carolina Water Service, Inc., Petitioner, v. Lexington County Joint Municipal Water and Sewer Commission, Respondent.
Town of Lexington, Petitioner, v. Lexington County Joint Municipal Water and Sewer Commission, Respondent.
Town of Lexington, Petitioner, v. Lexington County Joint Municipal Water and Sewer Commission, Respondent.
Lexington County Joint Municipal Water and Sewer Commission, Condemnor, Respondent, v. Carolina Water Service, Inc., Utilities, Inc., Landowners, Petitioners,
Town of Lexington, Other Condemnee, Petitioners. Unknown Claimants. Carolina Water Service, Inc., Petitioner, v. Lexington County Joint Municipal Water and Sewer Commission, Respondent.
This case arises out of a petition for a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision in Carolina Water Svc. Inc. v. Lexington County Joint Municipal Water and Sewer Comm'n, 367 S.C. 141, 625 S.E.2d 227 (2006). We hereby grant the petition, dispense with further briefing, and reverse the Court of Appeals' decision.
Respondent instituted a condemnation action against petitioners, and petitioners filed an action challenging respondent's right to condemn the property. The circuit court issued an order staying both the condemnation action and petitioners' challenge action pending the resolution of a related case before the South Carolina Administrative Law Court. After the Administrative Law Judge issued a decision, the circuit court lifted the stay of petitioners' action. Petitioners filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals. Relying on Hiott v. Contracting Svcs., 276 S.C. 632, 281 S.E.2d 224 (1981), the Court of Appeals held an order lifting a stay is immediately appealable.
Subsequently, this Court decided Edwards v. SunCom, 369 S.C. 91, 631 S.E.2d 529 (2006), in which we held an order granting a stay was not immediately appealable. Additionally, we explicitly overruled Hiott v. Contracting Svcs., supra, and Carolina Water Svc., supra, to the extent they were inconsistent with Edwards, supra.
Accordingly, we hereby reverse the Court of Appeals' decision in this matter since the order on appeal was not immediately appealable.
REVERSED.
PER CURIAM.
MOORE, A.C.J., WALLER, BURNETT and PLEICONES, JJ., concur. TOAL, C.J., not participating.
Was this helpful?
Thank you. Your response has been sent.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 26306.
Decided: April 09, 2007
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
FindLaw for Legal Professionals
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)