Legal Opinion
Tucker v. Honda of South Carolina Manufacturing, Inc.
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Decided June 2, 2003No. 25657PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
JUSTICE BURNETT:
The Court of Appeals dismissed Pee Dee Electric Cooperative’s (“Pee Dee”) appeal as interlocutory. See Tucker v. Honda of South Carolina Mfg., Inc., S.C. Ct.App. Order dated January 22, 2002. We granted a writ of certiorari and affirm.
FACTS
Carl and Eleanor Tucker (the “Tuckers”) deposed a former trustee of Pee Dee for a lawsuit against Pee Dee. Pee Dee objected to several questions based on attorney client privilege. The parties adjourned the deposition pursuant to Rule 30(d), SCRCP.
At a subsequent hearing, the trial court noted Pee Dee raised legitimate privilege concerns…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. WeintraubSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Mid-State Distributors, Inc. v. Century Importers, Inc.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1993
- Hooper v. RockwellSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1999
- State v. DosterSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1981
- Ex Parte WhetstoneSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1986
3Cited by6 opinions
- Wilson v. PrestonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2008
- Metts v. MimsSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2009
- Kandice McSwain, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Torrence C. McSwain v. HOMAG Machinery North America, Inc. and Stiles Machinery, Inc.District Court, D. South Carolina · 2026
- Metts v. MimsSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2009
- Wieters v. Bon-Secours-St. Francis Xavier Hospital, Inc.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 2009
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.