Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-610

Judicial review of final decision of administrative law judge; stay of enforcement of decision

Applied in 51 court decisions — leading case Brown v. South Carolina Department of Health & Environmental Control (2002)

Most recently applied in Sanders v. S.C. Dep't of Motor Vehicles (January 2019)

1993 Act No. 181, SECTION 19; 2006 Act No. 387, SECTION 5, eff July 1, 2006; 2008 Act No. 334, SECTION 8, eff June 16, 2008.

How often courts cite this section

199720002010201970
citing decisions per year

Court decisions citing this, by year. The dip in the last several years is a data-coverage gap, not a real trend — our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so recent citations are undercounted.

(A)(1) For judicial review of a final decision of an administrative law judge, a notice of appeal by an aggrieved party must be served and filed with the court of appeals as provided in the South Carolina Appellate Court Rules in civil cases and served on the opposing party and the Administrative Law Court not more than thirty days after the party receives the final decision and order of the administrative law judge. Appeal in these matters is by right.

(2) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, the serving and filing of the notice of appeal does not itself stay enforcement of the administrative law judge's decision. The serving and filing of a notice of appeal by a licensee for review of a fine or penalty or of its license stays only those provisions for which review is sought and matters not affected by the notice of appeal are not stayed. The serving or filing of a notice of appeal does not automatically stay the suspension or revocation of a permit or license authorizing the sale of beer, wine, or alcoholic liquor. Upon motion, the administrative law judge may grant, or the court of appeals may order, a stay upon appropriate terms.

(B) The review of the administrative law judge's order must be confined to the record. The court may not substitute its judgment for the judgment of the administrative law judge as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court of appeals may affirm the decision or remand the case for further proceedings; or, it may reverse or modify the decision if the substantive rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced because the finding, conclusion, or decision is:

(a) in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions;

(b) in excess of the statutory authority of the agency;

(c) made upon unlawful procedure;

(d) affected by other error of law;

(e) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; or

(f) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.

Official source: South Carolina Legislature. Reproduced from public-domain South Carolina statutes; confirm against the official source for the current text. Not legal advice.