Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2008-UP-331 - Holt v. Holloway

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


Diana Lynn Holt, Appellant/Respondent,

v.

James M. Holloway, Jr. and The Index Journal Company, Inc., Respondents/Appellants.


Appeal From Richland County
 L. Casey Manning, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-331
Heard June 3, 2008 – Filed July 1, 2008


APPEAL DISMISSED


Frank A Barton and H. Wayne Floyd, both of West Columbia, for Appellant-Respondent.

Robert E. Stepp, Tina Cundari and Jay  Bender, all of Columbia, for Respondents-Appellants.

PER CURIAM:  In this defamation action, Diana Holt appeals from the circuit court’s determination she is a limited public figure while James M. Holloway, Jr. and The Index Journal Company appeal from the circuit court’s denial of their motion for summary judgment.  We dismiss the appeal pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Holt’s Appeal: S.C. Code Ann. § 14-3-330(2) (1976) (stating interlocutory orders affecting a substantial right may be immediately appealed if they in effect determine the action and prevent a judgment from which an appeal might be taken); Mid-State Distributors, Inc. v. Century Importers, Inc., 310 S.C. 330, 335, 426 S.E.2d 777, 780 (1993) (“South Carolina case law has established what constitutes an interlocutory appeal. If there is some further act which must be done by the court prior to a determination of the rights of the parties, then the order is interlocutory. If a judgment determines the applicable law while leaving open questions of fact, it is not a final judgment.”) (citations omitted); Holloway and The Index Journal’s Cross Appeal: Ballenger v. Bowen, 313 S.C. 476, 477-78, 443 S.E.2d 379, 380 (1994) (“[t]he denial of summary judgment does not finally determine anything about the merits of the case and does not have the effect of striking any defense since that defense may be raised again later in the proceedings.  Therefore, an order denying a motion for summary judgment is not appealable.”); Wright v. Craft, 372 S.C. 1, 34-35, 640 S.E.2d 486, 504 (Ct. App. 2006) (explaining the court would adhere to recent precedent and refrain from addressing a denial of summary judgment).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and PIEPER, JJ., concur.