Geiger v. Carolina Pool Equipment Distributors, Inc.
Cases that cite this one
8 later published cases cite this decision.
- Wright v. Craft (S.C. Ct. App. 2006)
- Olson v. Faculty House of Carolina, Inc. (S.C. 2003)
- Baber v. Greenville County (S.C. 1997)
- Ballenger v. Bowen (S.C. 1994)
- State Ex Rel. Medlock v. Nest Egg Society Today, Inc. (S.C. Ct. App. 1986)
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. City of Spartanburg (S.C. 1976)
- Medlin v. W. T. Grant, Inc. (S.C. 1974)
- Greenwich Savings Bank v. Jones (S.C. 1973)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
This is an appeal from an order denying a motion for summary judgment. The motion was made pursuant to *114 Circuit Court Rule 44, as amended. Respondent’s contention that the order is not directly appealable is sustained.
An order denying a motion for summary judgment is an interlocutory decision and not directly appealable. The following from 4 Am. Jur. (2d) Appeal and Error, Section 104. p. 622, states the foregoing general rule and the reasons underlying it:
“However, the prevailing view seems to be that the denial of a motion for summary judgment is an interlocutory decision only and therefore not directly appealable, since such a denial is not an adjudication on the merits against the movant and he is not thereby foreclosed from the possibility of prevailing* in the case when the facts are developed, * * *.”
An annotation on the subject may be found in 15 A. L. R. (3d) 899.
Appeal dismissed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.