Hampton v. Richland County Council
Cases that cite this one
2 later published cases cite this decision.
- State v. Addison (S.C. Ct. App. 1999)
- Knowles v. City of Aiken (S.C. 1991)
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.
Concurring Opinion
(concurring):
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.
Opinion of the Court
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
Accordingly, the writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.
Writ dismissed.
Fasano v. Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, 264 Or. 574, 507 P. (2d) 23 (1973).
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.