Hyde v. South Carolina Department of Mental Health
Supreme Court of South Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
Moore, Justice:
Respondent Hyde commenced this action seeking damages under the Whistleblower Statute, S.C. Code Ann. § 8-27-30 (Supp. 1992). Appellant (Department) answered and raised as a defense Hyde’s failure to exhaust the administrative remedies available under the State Employees Grievance Procedure Act, S.C. Code Ann. §§ 8-17-310 through -380 (1986 and Supp. 1992). The trial judge granted Hyde’s motion to strike this defense. We reverse.
ISSUE
Did the trial judge err in striking Department’s defense?
DISCUSSION
Whether administrative remedies must be exhausted is a matter within the trial…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Timmons v. South Carolina Tricentennial CommissionSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1970
- Horn v. Davis Electrical Constructors, Inc.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1992
- Meredith v. ElliottSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1966
- Bennett v. South Carolina Department of CorrectionsSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1991
- Anders v. South Carolina Parole & Community Corrections BoardSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1983
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- Law v. South Carolina Department of CorrectionsSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2006
- Ward v. StateSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2000
- Key Corporate Capital, Inc. v. County of BeaufortSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2007
- Johnson v. OzmintDistrict Court, D. South Carolina · 2008
- Adamson v. Richland County School District OneCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1998
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.