Legal Opinion
Blyth v. Marcus
Court of Appeals of South Carolina
Decided March 18, 1996No. 2486PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Howell, Chief Justice:
The question presented is whether S.C. Code Ann. § 15-3-30 (1976) survived the adoption of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure (the Rules). The trial judge dismissed the negligence action filed by Eileen C. Blyth, finding Rule 3(b), SCRCP impliedly repealed section 15-3-30, thus Blyth’s action was barred by the statute of limitations. Blyth appeals.
FACTS
On August 20, 1984, Blyth was injured after Frank Marcus allegedly struck her with his auto while she was riding her bicycle in Columbia. At the time, both parties were residents of South Carolina. Blyth filed an…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Langley v. PierceSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1993
- Garner Ex Rel. Estate of Garner v. HouckSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1993
- City of Rock Hill v. South Carolina Department of Health & Environmental ControlSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1990
- Mims v. AlstonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1994
- Holman v. Bulldog Trucking Co.Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 1993
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Holy Loch Distributors, Inc. v. HitchcockCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1998
- City of North Myrtle Beach v. Lewis-DavisCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2004
- Hooper Ex Rel. Estate of Clinton v. Ebenezer Senior Services & Rehabilitation CenterCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2008
- Blyth v. MarcusSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1999
- Caldwell v. WiquistCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2013
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.