Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1992

First Union Nat'l Bank of SC v. Hitman, Inc.

Supreme Court of South Carolina · Decided May 26, 1992 · Per Curiam

418 S.E.2d 545; 308 S.C. 421; 1992 S.C. LEXIS 135 (South Eastern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

21 later published cases cite this decision.

Graceland Care Ctr. of New Albany, LLC v. Hamlet Ex Rel. Kinard (Miss. 2017)
Parag v. Baby Boy Lovin (S.C. Ct. App. 1998)
Huggins v. Catledge (S.C. Ct. App. 2006)
Bowman v. Richland Memorial Hospital (S.C. Ct. App. 1999)
Vanessa Williams v. Bradford Q. Jeffcoat, Jr. (S.C. 2024)
James E. Carroll, Jr. v. Isle of Palms Pest Control, Inc. (S.C. Ct. App. 2023)
Mack v. Washington (S.C. Ct. App. 2021)
Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Murray (S.C. Ct. App. 2021)
Graceland Care Center of New Albany, LLC v. Teresa Hamlet (Miss. 2017)
Brailsford v. Brailsford (S.C. Ct. App. 2008)
Rhoad v. State (S.C. Ct. App. 2007)
Maness v. Ginotoli (S.C. Ct. App. 2006)
Milton v. Strickland (S.C. Ct. App. 2005)
Corbin v. Kohler Co. (S.C. Ct. App. 2002)
Ford v. State Ethics Commission (S.C. 2001)
Gateway Enterprises, Inc. v. South Carolina Department of Revenue (S.C. 2000)
Badeaux v. Davis (S.C. Ct. App. 1999)
Hilton Head Resort Four Seasons Center Horizontal Property Regime Council of Co-Owners, Inc. v. Resort Investment Corp. (S.C. Ct. App. 1993)
Ex Parte Reichlyn (S.C. 1993)
South Carolina Department of Health & Environmental Control v. Columbia Organic Chemical Co. (S.C. 1993)
Owens v. Magill (S.C. 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

Per Curiam:

We granted certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals in First Union National Bank of South Carolina v. Hitman, et al., — S.C. — , 411 S.E. (2d) 681 (Ct. App. 1991). We affirm.

The sole question before us is whether a trial judge commits reversible error by issuing a written order which is in conflict with his prior oral ruling from the bench. We agree *422 with the analysis of the Court of Appeals, and hold that a judge is not bound by the prior oral ruling and may issue a written order which is in conflict with the oral ruling. To the extent McCranie v. Davis, 278 S.C. 513, 299 S.E. (2d) 338 (1983), is inconsistent with this opinion, it is overruled. Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeals is

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.