Legal Opinion
Townsend v. City of Dillon
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Decided June 2, 1997No. 24624PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BURNETT, Justice:
Appellants (Citizens) challenge the constitutionality of City of Dillon’s Ordinance 95-15 which effectively repealed Ordinance 91-35. Citizens argue because Ordinance 91-35 had been proposed by voter initiative, Respondent (the City Council) was required to obtain voter approval to repeal the ordinance. The trial court upheld the constitutionality of Ordinance 95-15. We affirm.
FACTS
In June 1991, Citizens and other registered voters in the City of Dillon petitioned the City Council to pass an ordinance which, in effect, prohibited the renaming of streets within the city limits…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Rickborn v. Liberty Life InsuranceSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1996
- Stetson v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1913
- Allen Ex Rel. City of Middlesboro v. HollingsworthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1933
- Granger v. City of TulsaSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1935
- Bird v. Town of Old Orchard BeachSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1981
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Prescott v. Farmers Telephone Cooperative, Inc.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1999
- Samples v. MitchellCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1997
- Trivelas v. South Carolina Department of TransportationCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2001
- Hurst v. SandyCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1997
- Shapemasters Golf Course Builders, Inc. v. Shapemasters, Inc.Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 2004
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.