Lee v. South Carolina Department of Natural Resources
Supreme Court of South Carolina
1Dissent
WALLER, Justice:
I respectfully dissent. I would affirm the grant of summary judgment to respondents Lee and Burris because the ban on Sunday hunting in eighteen Upstate counties violates the Equal Protection Clause of the state and federal constitutions.
It is undisputed that wild game and fish belong to no one in particular. Courts have classified them either as the property of the State or as being held in trust by the State for the benefit of the people as a whole. Thus, while every landowner has a right to hunt and fish on his or her property, that right is subject to reasonable…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Baldwin v. Fish and Game Comm'n of Mont.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Rice Hope Plantation v. South Carolina Public Service AuthoritySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1950
- Foster v. South Carolina Department of Highways & Public TransportationSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1992
- State v. HarperSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1968
- City of Beaufort v. BakerSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1993
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.