Holt v. Holloway

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT
BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE
239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

Diana Lynn
Holt, Appellant/Respondent,

v.

James M.
Holloway, Jr. and The Index Journal Company, Inc., Respondents/Appellants.

Appeal From Richland County

 L. Casey Manning, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-331

Heard June 3, 2008 – Filed July 1, 2008

APPEAL DISMISSED

Frank A Barton and H. Wayne Floyd, both of West Columbia, for
Appellant-Respondent.

Robert E. Stepp, Tina Cundari and Jay  Bender, all of Columbia, for Respondents-Appellants.

PER CURIAM:  In
this defamation action, Diana Holt appeals from the circuit court’s
determination she is a limited public figure while James M. Holloway, Jr. and
The Index Journal Company appeal from the circuit court’s denial of their
motion for summary judgment.  We dismiss the appeal pursuant to Rule 220(b),
SCACR, and the following authorities: Holt’s Appeal: S.C. Code Ann. § 14-3-330(2) (1976)
(stating interlocutory orders affecting a
substantial right may be immediately appealed if they in effect determine the action and prevent a judgment from which an appeal
might be taken); Mid-State Distributors, Inc. v. Century Importers,
Inc., 310 S.C. 330, 335, 426 S.E.2d 777, 780 (1993) (“South Carolina case law has established what constitutes
an interlocutory appeal. If there is some further act which must be done by the
court prior to a determination of the rights of the parties, then the order is
interlocutory. If a judgment determines the applicable law while leaving open
questions of fact, it is not a final judgment.”) (citations omitted); Holloway and The Index Journal’s Cross
Appeal: Ballenger v. Bowen, 313 S.C. 476,
477-78, 443 S.E.2d 379, 380 (1994) (“[t]he denial of summary judgment does not finally
determine anything about the merits of the case and does not have the effect of striking any defense since
that defense may be raised again later in the proceedings.  Therefore,
an order denying a motion for summary judgment is not appealable.”); Wright
v. Craft, 372 S.C. 1, 34-35, 640 S.E.2d 486, 504 (Ct. App. 2006) (explaining
the court would adhere to recent precedent and refrain from addressing a denial
of summary judgment).

APPEAL
DISMISSED.

WILLIAMS,
THOMAS, and PIEPER, JJ., concur.