Legal Opinion · Dissent

JRS Builders, Inc. v. Neunsinger

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided June 6, 2005No. 25995Published

1DissentJustice Pleicones

In 1974, the Court held that the General Assembly could not, consonant with the separation of powers doctrine, enact a statute in order to overturn the result in a case we had already decided. Lindsay v. Nat’l Old Line Ins. Co., 262 S.C. 621, 207 S.E.2d 75 (1974). In other words, the legislature cannot, by legislative enactment, overrule our interpretation of a statute. Boatwright v. McElmurray, 247 S.C. 199, 146 S.E.2d 716 (1966). Over the past several years, Lindsay has been construed as a limitation on the General Assembly’s authority to amend a statute, and to have that amendment *602apply…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Rivers v. Roadway Express, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1994
  2. Steinke v. South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing & RegulationSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1999
  3. Pike v. South Carolina Department of TransportationSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2000
  4. Tilley v. Pacesetter Corp.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 2003
  5. Knotts v. S.C. Department of Natural ResourcesSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2002

8 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