Clegg v. Lamberecht (Barker) ( 2013 )


Menu:
  • 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 Court of Appeals
    Deborah J. Clegg, as Personal Representative of the
    Estate of Allison T. Clegg, Appellant,
    v.
    Elliott M. Lambrecht and Rhett Barker, Defendants,
    Of whom Rhett Barker is Respondent.
    Appellate Case No. 2009-133509
    Appeal From Beaufort County
    Clifton Newman, Circuit Court Judge
    Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-083
    Heard February 4, 2013 – Filed February 20, 2013
    AFFIRMED
    H. Fred Kuhn, Jr., of Moss, Kuhn & Fleming, P.A., of
    Beaufort, for Appellant.
    Edward K. Pritchard, III, of Pritchard & Elliott, LLC, of
    Charleston, for Respondent.
    PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
    authorities: Rule 56(c), SCRCP (providing that summary judgment shall be
    granted when "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and
    admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no
    genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a
    judgment as a matter of law''); Hansson v. Scalise Builders of S.C., 
    374 S.C. 352
    ,
    357, 
    650 S.E.2d 68
    , 71 (2007) (holding that the plain language of Rule 56(c)
    mandates the entry of summary judgment against a party who fails to establish the
    existence of an element essential to the party's case and on which that party will
    bear the burden of proof); Jackson v. Bermuda Sands, Inc., 
    383 S.C. 11
    , 14 n.2,
    
    677 S.E.2d 612
    , 614 n.2 (Ct. App. 2009) (stating that this court reviews the grant
    of a summary judgment motion under the same standard applied by the trial court
    pursuant to Rule 56(c)); Peoples Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Myrtle Beach Golf &
    Yacht Club, 
    310 S.C. 132
    , 147, 
    425 S.E.2d 764
    , 774 (Ct. App. 1992) ("A joint
    enterprise exists where there are two or more persons united in the joint
    prosecution of a common purpose under such circumstances that each has
    authority, express or implied, to act for all in respect to the control of the means
    and the agencies employed to execute such common purpose.").
    AFFIRMED.
    FEW, C.J., and GEATHERS and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2013-UP-083

Filed Date: 2/20/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/22/2024