Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2007

South Carolina Department of Transportation v. McDonald's Corp.

Supreme Court of South Carolina · Decided August 27, 2007 · Burnett, Moore, Pleicones, Toal, Waller

375 S.C. 90; 650 S.E.2d 473; 2007 S.C. LEXIS 311

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

SC Dept. of Transp. v. MCDONALD'S CORP. (S.C. 2007)
In re the Care & Treatment of Manigo (S.C. 2012)

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

PER CURIAM.

In this condemnation action, both petitioner and respondent filed motions in limine to exclude certain evidence from the proceedings. The trial judge granted respondent’s motion and denied petitioner’s motion. Petitioner appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. S.C. Dep’t of Transp. v. McDonald’s Corp., Op. No.2006-UP-237 (S.C. Ct.App. filed May 9, 2006). Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari from' the decision of the Court of Appeals. We grant the petition, dispense with further briefing, vacate the opinion of the Court of Appeals, and dismiss the appeal.

*92A motion in limine is generally not considered a final order on the admissibility of evidence and, for that reason, is not immediately appealable. See, e.g. State v. Floyd, 295 S.C. 518, 369 S.E.2d 842 (1988). Because the appeal should have been dismissed, the Court of Appeals erred in addressing the merits of the appeal. Accordingly, we vacate the opinion of the Court of Appeals and dismiss the appeal as the order on the motions in limine is not immediately appealable.

VACATED AND DISMISSED.

TOAL, C.J., MOORE, WALLER, BURNETT and PLEICONES, JJ., concur.

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