Hannah v. United Refrigeration Services, Inc.
Cases that cite this one
3 later published cases cite this decision.
- Ray v. The Caroline Collection (S.C. Ct. App. 2006)
- Patterson v. McNeill-Patterson & Associates, Inc. (S.C. Ct. App. 1994)
- Richland County v. Lowman (S.C. Ct. App. 1992)
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 of the Court
ORDER
This is an appeal of an order granting respondent’s motion for a jury trial under Rule 39(b), SCRCP. Appellants assert the order is directly appealable because it deprives them of a mode of trial to which they are entitled as a matter of law. We disagree.
A party’s failure to make a timely demand for a jury trial does not mean the opposing party acquires a right to have, as a matter of law, a non-jury trial. A ruling on a Rule 39(b) motion is within the discretion of the judge and is interlocutory and not directly appealable. See Rowe Furniture Corp. v. Carolina Wholesale Furniture Co., Inc., 292 S.C. 575, 357 S.E. (2d) 725 (Ct. App. 1987). Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed without prejudice.
It is so ordered.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.