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 Supreme Court
Carolyn Chester, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Sherman E. Boutte, Jr., Appellant,
South Carolina Department of Public Safety, South Carolina Department of Transportation and South Carolina Forestry Commission, Respondents.
Appeal From Dorchester County
James C. Williams, Jr., Circuit Court Judge
Memorandum Opinion No. 2007-MO-042
Heard June 6, 2007 – Filed June 25, 2007
Robert N. Hill, of Newberry; and Mark B. Tinsley, of Godding & Gooding, P.A., of Allendale, for Appellant.
Marvin C. Jones, of Bogoslow, Jones, Stephens & Duffie, of Walterboro, for Respondent South Carolina Department of Public Safety.
Lisa A. Reynolds and Eric M. Johnsen, both of Anderson & Reynolds, of Charleston, for Respondent South Carolina Department of Transportation.
Roy P. Maybank, of Maybank Law Firm, of Charleston, for Respondent South Carolina Forestry Commission.
pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR,
and the following authorities: Ex
parte Wilson, 367 S.C. 7, 625 S.E.2d
205 (2005) (generally only final judgments are appealable, but an interlocutory
order may be immediately appealable if it falls under S.C. Code Ann. § 14-3-330);
S.C. Code Ann. § 14-3-330 (1976 & Supp. 2006) (interlocutory orders
involving the merits or affecting a substantial right are immediately
Distribs., Inc. v. Century Importers, Inc., 310
S.C. 330, 334, 335 n.4, 426 S.E.2d 777, 780, 780 n.4 (1993) (An interlocutory
order involving the merits is one that “must finally determine some substantial
matter forming the whole or a part of some cause of action or defense.” An
interlocutory order affects a substantial right when it will “discontinue an
action, prevent an appeal, grant or refuse a new trial, or strike out an action
TOAL, C.J., MOORE, WALLER, BURNETT and PLEICONES, JJ., concur.