Legal Opinion

G. Curtis Martin Investment Trust v. Clay

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided May 7, 1980No. 21222PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Harwell, Justice:

The appellants, Commissioners of the North Charleston Sewer District, appeal from an order granting respondent’s 1 motion for summary judgment. The circuit judge found that the appellants had unlawfully declined to process respon*610dent’s application for sewer service and, based upon this finding, ordered the appellants to perform all acts necessary to grant the respondent the service requested. The order appealed from is affirmed in part and modified in accordance with the views herein expressed.

The North Charleston Sewer District, a body politic and corporate with perpetual…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Sammons v. CITY OF BEAUFORTSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1954
  2. Willis v. Town of WoodruffSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1942
  3. South Carolina Farm Bureau v. ScottSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1980
  4. State ex rel. Abbeville County v. McMillanSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1898
  5. Atlantic Coast Line R. R. v. Railroad CommissionSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1911

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Q.C. Construction Co. v. GalloDistrict Court, D. Rhode Island · 1986
  2. Brashier v. South Carolina Department of TransportationSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1997
  3. City of North Charleston v. North Charleston DistrictSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1986
  4. City of Beaufort v. Beaufort-Jasper County WaterSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1997
  5. West Anderson Water District v. City of AndersonCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2016

4 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