Scient Partners v. Pinnacle

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

Scient Partners, LLC, Appellant,

v

Pinnacle Network Solutions, Inc. and Cliff Smith,
Respondents.

Appellate Case No. 2013-001764

Appeal From Florence County
R. Knox McMahon, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-560
Submitted October 1, 2015 – Filed December 23, 2015

AFFIRMED

Jon René Josey, of Turner Padget Graham & Laney, PA,
of Florence, and Carlyle Richardson Cromer, of Turner
Padget Graham & Laney, PA, of Myrtle Beach, for
Appellant.

Robert Thomas King and Edward Andrew Love, both of
King, Love & Hupfer, LLC, of Florence, for
Respondents.
PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76, 497 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1998)
("It is axiomatic that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must
have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial [court] to be preserved for appellate
review."); Graves v. Horry-Georgetown Tech. Coll., 391 S.C. 1, 10, 704 S.E.2d
350, 355 (Ct. App. 2010) ("[A] party may not present one argument to the trial
court and another on appeal.").1

AFFIRMED.2

FEW, C.J., and KONDUROS and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

1
Even if we found the issue preserved, we would affirm. See Hackworth v.
Greywood at Hammett, LLC, 385 S.C. 110, 118, 682 S.E.2d 871, 876 (Ct. App.
2009) ("[W]hen a party wishes to assert multiple causes of action, including civil
conspiracy, it must allege acts in furtherance of the conspiracy and special
damages that are separate and independent of the other acts and damages that
underlie the other causes of action within the same complaint.").
2
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.