Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Advocates
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Advocates
Judges

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Respondent, v. MCDONALD'SCORPORATION and Joel A. Pellicci and Linda Pellicci, Defendants, of whomMcDonald's Corporation is, Petitioner.

PER CURIAM.

In this condemnation action, both petitioner and respondent filed motions in limine to exclude certain evidence from the proceedings. The trial judge granted respondent's motion and denied petitioner's motion. Petitioner appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. S.C. Dep't of Transp. v. McDonald's Corp., Op. No. 2006-UP-237 (S.C.Ct.App. filed May 9, 2006). Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari from the decision of the Court of Appeals. We grant the petition, dispense with further briefing, vacate the opinion of the Court of Appeals, and dismiss the appeal.

A motion in limine is generally not considered a final order on the admissibility of evidence and, for that reason, is not immediately appealable. See, e.g. State v. Floyd, 295 S.C. 518, 369 S.E.2d 842 (1988). Because the appeal should have been dismissed, the Court of Appeals erred in addressing the merits of the appeal. Accordingly, we vacate the opinion of the Court of Appeals and dismiss the appeal as the order on the motions in limine is not immediately appealable.

VACATED AND DISMISSED.

TOAL, C.J., MOORE, WALLER, BURNETT and PLEICONES, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

SOUTH CAROLINA v. MCDONALD'S
(Aug 27, 2007)