Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
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
Attorney(S)
Judges

Patsy L. BITER, Respondent, v. SOUTH CAROLINA EMPLOYMENT SECURITYCOMMISSION and Jantzen Southern, Inc., Seneca, South Carolina,Respondents, of whom South Carolina Employment Security Commission isAppellant.

June 24, 1981.

LEWIS, Chief Justice:

Appellant South Carolina Employment Security Commission determined that the respondent had been discharged for misconduct within the sense of Section 41-35-120(2), Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1976. The respondent was therefore held disqualified to receive benefits for a period of five weeks. At the end of this period she commenced receiving benefits and continued to do so until they were exhausted. On appeal to the circuit court, respondent obtained a ruling that the Commission erred in its decision that she had been discharged for misconduct. From this holding the Commission now appeals.

Upon review of the record, briefs and argument of counsel, we find no justiciable issue between these parties. Counsel concedes in effect that the appeal seeks an advisory opinion only. This Court has consistently refrained from rendering such opinions, and accordingly this appeal is dismissed in light of our previous holdings. Booth v. Grissom, 265 S.C. 190, 192, 217 S.E.2d 223; O'Shields v. McLeod, 257 S.C. 477, 482, 186 S.E.2d 408.

NESS, GREGORY and HARWELL, JJ., concur.

LITTLEJOHN, J., dissents.

LITTLEJOHN, Justice (dissenting):

Being of the view that the ruling of the court would not be purely advisory in nature, I respectfully dissent.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

BITER v. S.C. EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMM
(Jun 24, 1981)