Mitchell v. Marruffo

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Mitchell v. Marruffo

Opinion

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court

Neshen Mitchell, Individually and as the next friend of her minor child, Hakeem T.M., Petitioners,

v.

Juan Marruffo, d/b/a Liberty Express, Adrian Moralez, RET Partnership, William T. McQueeney, Carl E. Roberts, Karl R. Henderson, and Steven Parham, Defendants,

Of whom RET Partnership, William T. McQueeney, Carl E. Roberts, Karl R. Henderson, and Steven Parham are the, Respondents.

Appellate Case No. 2013-000670

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS

Appeal from Charleston County Roger M. Young, Sr., Circuit Court Judge

Memorandum Opinion No. 2015-MO-010 Heard February 4, 2015 – Filed March 4, 2015

DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED Richard S. Rosen and Andrew D. Gowdown, both of Rosen, Rosen & Hagood, LLC, of Charleston, and J. Joseph Condon, Jr., of North Charleston, for Petitioners.

Samuel R. Clawson, Timothy A. Domin, and Christina R. Fargnoli, all of Clawson and Staubes, LLC, of Charleston, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM: We granted certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision in Mitchell v. Marruffo, Op. No. 2013-UP-010 (S.C. Ct. App. filed Jan. 9, 2013). We now dismiss the writ as improvidently granted.

DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED.

TOAL, C.J., PLEICONES, BEATTY, KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ., concur.

Reference

Status
Unpublished