Legal Opinion · Dissent

Amisub of South Carolina, Inc. v. South Carolina Department of Health & Environmental Control

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided April 14, 2014No. Appellate Case No. 2013-001530; Nos. 27382Published

1DissentJustice Pleicones

I respectfully dissent. In my opinion, when the House sustained the Governor’s veto, the effect was to prevent the expenditure of funds by DHEC for the CON program for fiscal year 2013-2014. Jackson v. Sanford, 398 S.C. 580, 731 S.E.2d 722 (2011). In my view, the CON program and its requirements remain the law, but all applications in process are suspended, no new applications can be accepted, and all other matters are in limbo unless and until the program is again funded.

The Governor’s Veto 20 provides:

Veto 20 Part IA, Page 100; Section 34, Department of Health and Environmental Control; II.…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Coleman v. LewisSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1936
  2. Hampton v. HaleySupreme Court of South Carolina · 2013
  3. Drummond v. BeasleySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1998
  4. State Ex Rel. Long v. JonesSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1914
  5. Jackson v. SanfordSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2011

1 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