Legal Opinion

Touchberry v. City of Florence

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided March 28, 1988No. 22848PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Ness, Chief Justice:

Appellant (Owner) contends the trial court erred in failing to mandamus the respondents to pro vide, him with water and sewer service. We find that Owner is a third party beneficiary of a service contract between respondent City of Florence (City) and Florence County and is entitled to the writ. We reverse.

Owner lives in Florence County on property which is partially contiguous to the City. City has long had an ordinance requiring annexation of contiguous property as a condition for receiving City services and utilities.

Florence County Council (Council) created a municipal…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Ancrum v. Camden Water, Light & Ice Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1909
  2. Cothran v. Rock HillSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1947
  3. Peeples v. South Carolina Power Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1932

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Stokes v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2000
  2. Helms Realty, Inc. v. Gibson-Wall Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 2005
  3. Villa Sierra Condominium Ass'n v. Field Corp.Colorado Court of Appeals · 1994
  4. City of Cayce v. AT&T Communications of the Southern States, Inc.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1997
  5. Trancik v. USAA InsuranceCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2003

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API