Legal Opinion
Richland County v. Kaiser
Court of Appeals of South Carolina
Decided July 15, 2002No. 3534PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HEARN, Chief Judge:
Richland County (the County) brought an action to compel the owner and lessee of commercial property to comply with a zoning ordinance requiring screening between commercial properties and residential areas. The trial judge found that the ordinance was vague, indefinite, and unenforceable and the action was barred by the statute of limitations and estoppel and laches. The trial judge also awarded attorney’s fees to the owner of the property, Charles Kaiser, and the lessee, United Oil Marketers (United), pursuant to S.C.Code Ann. § 15-77-300 (1985). We reverse and remand for…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Heath v. County of AikenSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1990
- Silvester v. Spring Valley Country ClubCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2001
- Doe v. ClarkSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1995
- Heath v. County of AikenSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1988
- Mictronics, Inc. v. South Carolina Department of RevenueCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2001
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Fields v. Regional Medical Center OrangeburgSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2005
- Historic Charleston Holdings, LLC v. MallonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2009
- Sanford v. South Carolina State Ethics CommissionSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2009
- COLE VISION CORP. v. HobbsSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2011
- Lucey v. MeyerCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2012
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.