Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2009-UP-604 - Couram v. Time Warner Cable

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Glenda Couram, Appellant,

v.

Time Warner Cable Communications, Inc., d/b/a MC Cable TV Limited Partnership, d/b/a Time Warner Entertainment/Advance Newhouse Partnership, James Bowers and Jim Mosley, Respondents.


Appeal From Lexington County
R. Knox McMahon, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No.  2009-UP-604
Submitted December 1, 2009 – Filed December 22, 2009


AFFIRMED


Glenda Couram, of Lexington, for Appellant.

Catharine Garbee-Griffin and Holly Palmer Beeson, of Columbia, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM:  In this civil action, Glenda R. Couram appeals the circuit court's entry of a jury verdict against her.  In support, she argues the circuit court erred, inter alia, in refusing to continue trial, quashing the subpoena issued for a trial witness, directing a verdict as to all issues except trespass, and permitting opposing counsel to make false or misleading statements during its closing argument.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: 

1.  As to the circuit court's denial of Couram's motion to continue:  Logan v. Gatti, 289 S.C. 546, 548, 347 S.E.2d 506, 507 (Ct. App. 1986) (holding a motion for continuance due to the absence of a material witness is addressed to the judge's discretion, and therefore, the ruling will not be disturbed unless it is shown to be an abuse of discretion); Hudson v. Blanton, 282 S.C. 70, 74, 316 S.E.2d 432, 434 (Ct. App. 1984) (requiring a showing of prejudice to the moving party and "not only the absence of some material evidence but also due diligence on [the moving party's] part to obtain it").

2.  As to the circuit court's decision to quash witness Smith's subpoena and as to the allowance of statements made during closing arguments:  Mulherin-Howell v. Cobb, 362 S.C. 588, 600, 608 S.E.2d 587, 593-94 (Ct. App. 2005) (stating an issue is deemed abandoned on appeal when no legal authority is cited to support the argument). 

3.  As to the circuit court's entry of a directed verdict:  Rule 208(b)(1)(D), SCACR (requiring argument of each issue in an appellant's brief to include discussion of the issue as well as citations to authority); Guinan v. Tenet Healthsystems of Hilton Head, Inc., 383 S.C. 48, 54 n.4, 677 S.E.2d 32, 36 n.4 (Ct. App. 2009) (deeming an issue waived on appeal if it is not argued in the appellant's brief). 

4.  As to Couram's remaining issues:  Staubes v. City of Folly Beach, 339 S.C. 406, 412, 529 S.E.2d 543, 546 (2000) (requiring issues to be raised to and ruled upon by the circuit court to be preserved for appellate review).    

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS, PIEPER, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur. 


[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.