Legal Opinion · Dissent

Bartley v. Bartley Logging Co.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided July 27, 1987No. 22759Published

1DissentNess, Chief Justice

I respectfully dissent. In my opinion, the statutory amendment was remedial in nature and therefore may be applied retroactively. I would reverse.

At the time of appellant’s injury, the provisions of S. C. Code Ann. Section 42-9-10 (1976) provided benefits not to exceed 500 weeks. Approximately a year after appellant’s injury, the statute was amended to permit lifetime benefits.

As a general rule, statutes are to be applied prospectively only unless the statute clearly indicates otherwise or unless the statute is remedial or procedural in nature. Oehler v. Clinton, 282 S. C. 25, 317 S. E. (2d)…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Schall v. Sturm, Ruger Co., Inc.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1983
  2. Ex Parte Oehler v. ClintonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1984
  3. William C. Logan & Associates v. LeathermanSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1986

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

Powered by the Exa API