City of Orangeburg v. Edwards
Supreme Court of South Carolina
1DissentNess, Justice
(dissenting) :
I dissent and would affirm the trial court. In my view the majority gives an overly strict interpretation to § 28-9-90, Code of Laws of South Carolina (1976), in dismissing the appeal because the City of Orangeburg served its notice of appeal on Carolyn Edwards’ attorney rather than her.
Although § 28-9-90, supra, designates notices to be served in the same manner as a summons in a civil action, I believe the interests of justice dictate a more liberal interpretation of the statute than given by the majority.
It is well-settled that once an action has been commenced and an…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Anderson v. AndersonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1941