CourtListener 10154257•Jackson v. Thomas
Gesamter Gesetzestext
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
Ris'e D.
Jackson, Sheena Sophia Jackson, and Joel Barry Jackson, II, Respondents,
v.
Michael Shawn
Thomas, Alex J. Newton, Household Asset Co., Inc., Defendants,
Of whom Michael
Shawn Thomas and Household Asset Co., Inc. are Appellants.
Appeal From Greenville County
Charles B. Simmons, Jr., Master In Equity
Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-450
Submitted October 1, 2011 Filed October
11, 2011
APPEAL DISMISSED
Zandra L. Johnson, of Greenville, for
Appellants.
David Charles Alford, of Spartanburg, for
Respondents.
PER CURIAM: Michael Shawn Thomas and Household Asset Company, Inc. appeal the
circuit court's granting of a motion to restore the matter to the active trial
docket. Because the order on appeal grants a motion to restore, it is not a
final judgment and is not immediately appealable. See Shields v.
Martin Marietta Corp., 303 S.C. 469, 470, 402 S.E.2d 482, 483 (1991)
("The decision on a motion to restore the case to the active docket is not
a final judgment and is interlocutory and, therefore, not immediately
appealable."). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.[1]
APPEAL DISMISSED.
SHORT,
WILLIAMS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.
[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to
Rule 215, SCACR.
Setzen Sie Ihre Recherche in ChatGPT oder Claude fort
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.