Legal Opinion

Hamm v. Cromer

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided July 22, 1991No. 23440PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Harwell, Justice:

This case involves a declaratory judgment action in which the trial judge determined that Act No. 784, 1988 S.C. Acts *3066447, an act that changed the method of appointment for the members of the governing body of the Newberry County Water and Sewer Authority, was prohibited special legislation and thus, violative of S.C. Const., art. VIII, §§ 1 and 7. We affirm.

I. FACTS

Newberry County Water and Sewer Authority (Authority) was created by Act No. 119, 1963 S.C. Acts 114 and Act No. 190,1969 S.C. Acts 202. Pursuant to Act No. 190, the governing body of the Authority was to be…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Knight v. SalisburySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1974
  2. Duncan v. County of YorkSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1976
  3. Kleckley v. PulliamSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1975
  4. Horry County v. CookeSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1980
  5. Van Fore v. CookeSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1979

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Davis v. Richland County CouncilSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2007
  2. Pickens County v. Pickens County Water & Sewer AuthoritySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1994
  3. Davis v. Richland County CouncilSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2007
  4. Davis v. Richland County CouncilSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2007
  5. Hamm v. CromerSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1991

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API