Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2004-UP-240 - Thompson v. Waters

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Wade and Gertrude Thompson,        Appellant,

v.

Van Waters and Rogers, Inc.,        Respondent.


Appeal From Spartanburg County
Larry R. Patterson, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-240
Submitted January 29, 2004 – Filed April 13, 2004


AFFIRMED


William Ashley Jordan, of Greenville, for Appellants.

Samuel W. Outten, John P. Riordan, Lane W. Davis, of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Affirmed pursuant to South Carolina Rules of Appellate Practice, Rule 220, and the following authorities:  Shealy v. Aiken County, 341 S.C. 448, 460, 535 S.E.2d 438, 444 (2000) (holding an issue that had been raised to but not ruled upon by the trial court was not preserved for review, where the appellant failed to make a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment); see Grant v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 319 S.C. 348, 356, 461 S.E.2d 388, 392 (1995) (holding an inaccuracy in the trial court’s order must be raised to the trial court by way of a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend a judgment before the inaccuracy may be challenged on appeal); see also Noisette v. Ismail, 304 S.C. 56, 58, 403 S.E.2d 122, 124 (1991) (holding an issue was not preserved for appellate review because the trial court did not explicitly rule on it at trial and the appellant made no Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment).

AFFIRMED. [1]

GOOLSBY, HUFF, and HOWARD, JJ., concurring.


[1] Because oral argument would not aid the Court in resolving any issue on appeal, we decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.