From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Henning v. Kaye

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Mar 11, 1992
415 S.E.2d 794 (S.C. 1992)

Summary

denying respondents' motion to dismiss even though noting dismissal of the appeal would be justified based on appellant's numerous violations of the appellate court rules

Summary of this case from Whitlock v. Collins

Opinion

March 11, 1992.


March 11, 1992.

ORDER

Respondents move the Court to dismiss this appeal. By return, appellant opposes the motion as to respondents Edward Henning and Carol Henning (the Hennings). Appellant does not oppose the motion as to respondent Max L. Hill Co., Inc. (Hill). The motion to dismiss as to Hill is granted.

The Hennings move to dismiss pursuant to Rule 231, SCACR. The Hennings claim that appellant's initial brief fails to comply with Rule 207, SCACR, and that his Designation of Matter to be Included in the Record on Appeal (Designation) is insufficient under Rule 208, SCACR.

By return, appellant's counsel asserts that he has substantially complied with the Rules and that instances of noncompliance were inadvertent technical errors and minor discrepancies. Counsel moves to amend his brief. Counsel further contends that his Designation is clear and specific.

Appellant's brief fails to comply with the Rule 207 in the following particulars: the components of the brief are incorrectly organized and labeled, the issues are not distinctively headed, the table of authorities is not alphabetized or referenced to the body of the brief, the statement of the case contains contested matter and omits required information, and the arguments contain no citations to the record or to the cases listed in the table of authorities.

Counsel is advised that the South Carolina Appellate Court Rules are not mere technicalities but provide the parties and this Court with an orderly mechanism through which to guide appeals in this State. It is incumbent upon counsel to provide material that complies with the Rules and facilitates appellate review.

Although this Court would be completely justified in dismissing this appeal based on appellant's numerous violations of the Rules, we decline to do so and deny the motion to dismiss as to the Hennings. Instead, appellant shall, within fifteen (15) days of this order, serve and file an initial brief that does fully comply with Rule 207, SCACR. No changes shall be made to appellant's arguments except that appellant may add citations to the cases listed in the current table of authorities and references to the record as provided by Rule 207(b)(4).

With his brief appellant shall serve and file an amended Designation that sets forth with specificity the exhibits and other matter he wishes to include in the Record on Appeal. Appellant is reminded that the Record on Appeal shall not contain any matter not presented to the trial court. Rule 209(c), SCACR.

It is so ordered.

CHANDLER, J., not participating.


Summaries of

Henning v. Kaye

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Mar 11, 1992
415 S.E.2d 794 (S.C. 1992)

denying respondents' motion to dismiss even though noting dismissal of the appeal would be justified based on appellant's numerous violations of the appellate court rules

Summary of this case from Whitlock v. Collins
Case details for

Henning v. Kaye

Case Details

Full title:Edward L. HENNING and Carol Sue Henning, Respondents v. Herbert KAYE and…

Court:Supreme Court of South Carolina

Date published: Mar 11, 1992

Citations

415 S.E.2d 794 (S.C. 1992)
415 S.E.2d 794

Citing Cases

Whitlock v. Collins

4. As to Whitlock's argument that Collins failed to inform her he ordered the trial transcript, we decline to…

Forner v. Butler

However, nothing in the record supports these assertions. As the Supreme Court advised the bar in Henning v.…