Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Harleysville Mutual Insurance v. State

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided November 21, 2012No. 27189Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice Beatty

I agree with the majority’s findings that Act No. 26 does not violate the separation of powers doctrine, is not unconstitutional special legislation, and does not deprive Petitioner of equal protection. Furthermore, I agree with the majority’s resolution of Petitioner’s arguments regarding the principles of federalism and the Commerce Clause. I, however, respectfully dissent as to the majority’s holding that the retroactivity provision of Act No. 26 violates the state and federal Contract Clauses. I find no violation and would declare Act No. 26 constitutional in both substance and…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Home Building & Loan Assn. v. BlaisdellSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
  2. United States Trust Co. of NY v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  3. Energy Reserves Group, Inc. v. Kansas Power & Light Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
  4. General Motors Corp. v. RomeinSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  5. Hodges v. RaineySupreme Court of South Carolina · 2000

7 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