Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • Messrs. Nexsen, Pruet, Jacobs Pollard, of Columbia, for Appellant, cite: As to the Trial Court's erring in failing to find and to hold under the facts of this case that Appellant had satisfied the burden of making a prima facie showing that both the convenience of the witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by a change of venue: 217 S.C. 16, 59, S.E.2d 344; 208 S.C. 245, 37 S.E.2d 665; 222 S.C. 396, 73 S.E.2d 279; 199 S.C. 349, 19 S.E.2d 471; 190 S.C. 66, 1 S.E.2d 920; 206 S.C. 261, 33 S.E.2d 629; 217 S.C. 16, 59 S.E.2d 344; 218 S.C. 481, 63 S.E.2d 311; 244 S.C. 282, 136 S.E.2d 711; 50 Cal.2d 594, 328 P.2d 953; 97 Cal.App.2d 829, 218 P.2d 573; 142 N.Y.S. 228; 179 Cal. 277, 176 P. 444; 31 N.Y.S. 608; 88 App. Div. 57, 84 N.Y.S. 738; 245 S.C. 35, 138 S.E.2d 645; 226 S.C. 177, 84 S.E.2d 557; 158 S.C. 496, 155 S.E. 828; 108 S.C. 234, 94 S.C. 109; 260 S.C. 532, 197 S.E.2d 663; 224 S.C. 396, 79 S.E.2d 371; 228 S.C. 481, 90 S.E.2d 685; 385 S.C. 399, 17 S.E. 141. As to the Trial Court's erring in finding that a prima facie showing was overcome at least to the convenience of the witnesses by Respondent's affidavits of potential witnesses who had no first-hand knowledge of the incident and had been retained by the Plaintiff to testify in the case only as expert witnesses: 217 S.C. 16, 59 S.E.2d 344; 221 S.C. 334, 70 S.E.2d 346; 228 S.C. 481, 90 S.E.2d 685. Messrs. Lofton M. Fanning, of Orangeburg, and Kearse, Rhoad, of Bamberg, for Respondent, cite: As to the Trial Court's correctly finding that Appellant had failed to satisfy the burden of making a prima facie showing that both the convenience of the witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by a change of venue from Bamberg County to Richland County: Section 10-310(3) of the Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1962; 261 S.C. 214, 199 S.E.2d 71; 260 S.C. 532, 197 S.E.2d 663; 262 S.C. 259, 203 S.E.2d 673; 236 S.C. 299, 114 S.E.2d 97; 235 S.C. 222, 110 S.E.2d 923; 38 S.C. 399, 17 S.E. 141; 193 S.C. 137, 7 S.E.2d 850; 190 S.C. 66, 1 S.E.2d 920; 206 S.C. 261, 23 S.E.2d 629. As to the Trial Court's not abusing his judicial discretion in deciding that Respondent overcame a prima facie showing: 245 S.C. 478, 141 S.E.2d 339; Section 10-310(3) of S.C. Code of 1962, as amended; 74 A.L.R.2d 99.
Judges
  • MOSS, Chief Justice:
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • Messrs. Nexsen, Pruet, Jacobs Pollard, of Columbia, for Appellant, cite: As to the Trial Court's erring in failing to find and to hold under the facts of this case that Appellant had satisfied the burden of making a prima facie showing that both the convenience of the witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by a change of venue: 217 S.C. 16, 59, S.E.2d 344; 208 S.C. 245, 37 S.E.2d 665; 222 S.C. 396, 73 S.E.2d 279; 199 S.C. 349, 19 S.E.2d 471; 190 S.C. 66, 1 S.E.2d 920; 206 S.C. 261, 33 S.E.2d 629; 217 S.C. 16, 59 S.E.2d 344; 218 S.C. 481, 63 S.E.2d 311; 244 S.C. 282, 136 S.E.2d 711; 50 Cal.2d 594, 328 P.2d 953; 97 Cal.App.2d 829, 218 P.2d 573; 142 N.Y.S. 228; 179 Cal. 277, 176 P. 444; 31 N.Y.S. 608; 88 App. Div. 57, 84 N.Y.S. 738; 245 S.C. 35, 138 S.E.2d 645; 226 S.C. 177, 84 S.E.2d 557; 158 S.C. 496, 155 S.E. 828; 108 S.C. 234, 94 S.C. 109; 260 S.C. 532, 197 S.E.2d 663; 224 S.C. 396, 79 S.E.2d 371; 228 S.C. 481, 90 S.E.2d 685; 385 S.C. 399, 17 S.E. 141. As to the Trial Court's erring in finding that a prima facie showing was overcome at least to the convenience of the witnesses by Respondent's affidavits of potential witnesses who had no first-hand knowledge of the incident and had been retained by the Plaintiff to testify in the case only as expert witnesses: 217 S.C. 16, 59 S.E.2d 344; 221 S.C. 334, 70 S.E.2d 346; 228 S.C. 481, 90 S.E.2d 685. Messrs. Lofton M. Fanning, of Orangeburg, and Kearse, Rhoad, of Bamberg, for Respondent, cite: As to the Trial Court's correctly finding that Appellant had failed to satisfy the burden of making a prima facie showing that both the convenience of the witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by a change of venue from Bamberg County to Richland County: Section 10-310(3) of the Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1962; 261 S.C. 214, 199 S.E.2d 71; 260 S.C. 532, 197 S.E.2d 663; 262 S.C. 259, 203 S.E.2d 673; 236 S.C. 299, 114 S.E.2d 97; 235 S.C. 222, 110 S.E.2d 923; 38 S.C. 399, 17 S.E. 141; 193 S.C. 137, 7 S.E.2d 850; 190 S.C. 66, 1 S.E.2d 920; 206 S.C. 261, 23 S.E.2d 629. As to the Trial Court's not abusing his judicial discretion in deciding that Respondent overcame a prima facie showing: 245 S.C. 478, 141 S.E.2d 339; Section 10-310(3) of S.C. Code of 1962, as amended; 74 A.L.R.2d 99.
Judges
  • MOSS, Chief Justice:
See more information ...
Smart Summary

James TAYLOR, Respondent, v. SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC GAS COMPANY,Appellant.

March 14, 1975.

MOSS, Chief Justice:

James Taylor, the respondent herein, commenced this action in Bamberg County to recover for alleged injuries sustained by him at the Briargate Apartment Complex in Columbia, South Carolina. While working on the project, he brought a metal ladder in contact with a distribution line of the South Carolina Electric Gas Company, the appellant herein.

The appellant made a motion for a change of venue from Bamberg County to Richland County, pursuant to Section 10-310(3) of the 1962 Code, on the grounds that the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by such change. The motion was heard by the Honorable William L. Rhodes, Jr., presiding judge, and he, thereafter, filed an order denying the motion. This appeal followed.

We have repeatedly held that a motion for a change of venue, on the grounds here involved, is addressed to the sound discretion of the judge who hears it, and his decision will not be disturbed by this Court except upon a clear showing of abuse of discretion amounting to a manifest error of law. Livingston v. Central Refrigeration Company, 261 S.C. 147, 198 S.E.2d 799, and the cases therein cited.

We have carefully reviewed the affidavits submitted in support of and in opposition to the motion. Our view of the entire record fails to convince us that there was an abuse of discretion amounting to an error of law on the part of the hearing judge. The judgment is, accordingly,

Affirmed.

LEWIS, BUSSEY, LITTLEJOHN and NESS, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.
Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

Comments

TAYLOR v. S.C. ELECTRIC GAS CO
(Mar 14, 1975)