Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

278 S.C. 508

299 S.E.2d 335

Germain v. Nichol

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided January 5, 1983

Supreme Court of South Carolina · decided 1983-01-05

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Appellant has the burden of providing this Court with a sufficient record upon which this Court can make its decision.”). 2 . In no way do we purport to regulate the practice of law by addressing the unauthorized practice of law in this opinion. The regulation of the practice of law is within the exclusive province of our supreme court. See S.C. Const, art. V, § 4 (”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Wachovia Bank, N.A. v. Coffey

Relies on Wilson v. American Casualty Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1983-01-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently May 2010 · most notably Prescott v. Farmers Telephone Cooperative, Inc. (1999), State v. 192 Coin-Operated Video Game MacHines (2000)

38 state decisions

1801983199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam:

¶1 This is an appeal from an action in conversion resulting in a $1,200 verdict for respondent.

¶2 Three of appellant’s four exceptions violate Supreme Court Rule 4, § 6 because they do not contain a complete assignment of error. See South Carolina Insurance Department v. Estrada, S. C. 287 S. E. (2d) 475 (1982); Barbee v. Poston, S. C. 289 S. E. (2d) 649 (1982). We dismiss these exceptions.

¶3 Appellant’s remaining exception is to the effect that the evidence does not justify the award of actual damages. Appellant does not present this Court with any of the trial testimony. Appellant has the burden of providing this Court with a sufficient record upon which this Court can make its decision. Wilson v. American Casualty Co., 252 S. C. 393, 166 S. E. (2d) 797 (1969). We find appellant has failed to satisfy this burden.

¶4 Furthermore, in the Statement of the case appellant concedes that respondent’s evidence was uncontroverted. The Statement of the case recites: “[T]he plaintiff in the trial of the cause presented evidence to establish the conversion of plaintiff’s property and the resulting damage. The plaintiff’s evidence was uncontroverted as the Defendant was not present at trial and the defense put on no witnesses.” The parties are bound by the Statement of the case. Patel, et al. v. Southern Brokers, Ltd., S. C. 289 S. E. (2d) 642 (1982).

¶5 The judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

Ness, J., not participating.
/278/sc/508 · .json · Public domain