From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hampton v. Richland County Council

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jul 11, 1988
296 S.C. 72 (S.C. 1988)

Summary

concluding discussion of a legal principle in an opinion was dicta where it was "clearly unnecessary to a resolution of the issue before the court"

Summary of this case from State v. Addison

Opinion

22887

Heard March 7, 1988.

Decided July 11, 1988.

A. Camden Lewis of Lewis, Babcock, Pleicones Hawkins, Columbia, for petitioners. C. Dennis Aughtry of Richland County Atty.'s Office, Columbia, for respondents. Ronald M. Childress, Columbia, for Concerned Citizens of Caughman Road, amicus curiae.


Heard March 7, 1988.

Decided July 11, 1988.


We issued a writ of certiorari to review the opinion of the Court of Appeals reported at 292 S.C. 500, 357 S.E.2d 463 (Ct.App. 1987). After the careful consideration of the briefs and arguments, we have decided the writ was improvidently granted. We note, however, that the discussion of the so-called Fasano doctrine in the Court of Appeals' opinion is clearly unnecessary to a resolution of the issue before the court and is therefore dicta. See Johnson v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 142 S.C. 125, 140 S.E. 443 (1927).

Fasano v. Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, 264 Or. 574, 507 P.2d 23 (1973).

Accordingly, the writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.

Writ dismissed.

GREGORY, C.J., and FINNEY, and CHANDLER, JJ., concur.

HARWELL, J., concurring in separate opinion.


Petitioners brought this action to overturn Richland County Council's refusal to rezone their property as C-3 (General Commercial). We granted certiorari to review the opinion of the Court of Appeals which upheld Council's decision.

This Court will not overturn the decision of a zoning authority unless the decision is not fairly debatable. Rushing v. City of Greenville, 265 S.C. 285, 217 S.E.2d 797 (1975). A decision is not fairly debatable if it is so unreasonable as to impair or destroy a Constitutional right. Id.

While I question the wisdom of Council's decision, I can not say that the decision is not fairly debatable. Therefore, I agree that the writ of certiorari was improvidently granted.


Summaries of

Hampton v. Richland County Council

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jul 11, 1988
296 S.C. 72 (S.C. 1988)

concluding discussion of a legal principle in an opinion was dicta where it was "clearly unnecessary to a resolution of the issue before the court"

Summary of this case from State v. Addison
Case details for

Hampton v. Richland County Council

Case Details

Full title:Dr. A.G. HAMPTON and The Krystal Company, Petitioners v. RICHLAND COUNTY…

Court:Supreme Court of South Carolina

Date published: Jul 11, 1988

Citations

296 S.C. 72 (S.C. 1988)
370 S.E.2d 714

Citing Cases

State v. Addison

Second, the sentence Addison extracts from Wiggins in support of his argument is dicta and is neither…

Knowles v. City of Aiken

We cannot insinuate our judgment into a review of the City's decision. Rather, we must leave the City's…