Legal Opinion

Craps v. Mercury Construction Corp.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided January 7, 1981No. 21363PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Ness, Justice:

Appellant Broyles appeals from an order denying its motions to be stricken as a defendant and to file a late answer. We affirm.

Respondent Kathleen Craps amended her complaint 23 months after commencement of this action by adding appellant as a defendant.

Appellant first asserts the trial court abused its discretion in denying its motion to be stricken as a defendant because respondent amended her complaint, adding appellant as party defendant, without order of the court and outside the time period allowed under § 15-13-910, Code of Laws of S. C. (1976). We disagree.

The trial…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1977
  2. Morgan v. State Farm Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1956
  3. Anderson v. Toledo Scale Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1939
  4. Thermal Insulation Co. v. Town & Campus, Inc.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1978

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Y. C. Ballenger Electrical Contractors, Inc. v. Reach-All Sales, Inc.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1981
  2. McLaughlin v. StricklandCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1983
  3. Estate of Moon Ex Rel. Gregory v. City of GreerCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2002
  4. Holman v. Warwick Furnace Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1995

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API