Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Eargle v. Horry County

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Decided April 26, 1999No. 2880Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partCureton, Judge

I concur in Parts I and III of the majority opinion, but disagree with Part II of the opinion. Therefore, Part I of my prior opinion in this case, Eargle v. Horry County, Op. No. 2880 (filed August 17, 1998) (Davis Adv. Sh. No. 29), with minor modifications, is published as my dissent.

The Home Rule Act, codified at S.C.Code Ann. §§ 4-9-10 through -1230 (1986 & Supp.1998), was enacted to comply with the mandate of Article VIII, § 7 of the South Carolina Constitution, which requires the General Assembly to provide for the structure and organization of not more than five alternative forms of…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Ray Bell Construction Co. v. School DistrictSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1998
  2. Duncan v. County of YorkSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1976
  3. Hospitality Ass'n of South Carolina, Inc. v. County of CharlestonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1995
  4. Sanders v. BelueSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1907
  5. McDowell v. BurnettSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1912

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