Faltas v. Steele

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

Marie Assa'ad Faltas, M.D.,
M.P.H., Respondent,

v.
Dinah Steele, Steele Enterprises
and/or AAA Investments, a
business; Larry Roe; Sharon B.
Koon; Eugene W. (Buddy)
Koon, Jr.; Eugene W. (Trip)
Koon, III; Evers-Koon and or
EKG of South Carolina, a
business; Jane Doe; and other
unknown-named persons and
entities who injured Plaintiff, Defendants,
of whom Dinah Steele and
Larry Mason are the, Appellants.

__________

Appeal From Richland County
Alison Renee Lee, Circuit Court Judge
__________

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-377
Submitted June 1, 2012 – Filed June 20, 2012
__________

VACATED AND REMANDED
__________

J. Andrew Delaney and C. Edward Rawl, Jr., both of
Columbia, for Appellants.

Orin Gail Briggs, of Lexington, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Dinah Steel and Larry Mason appeal the issuance of a
preliminary injunction, arguing the trial court erred in issuing the preliminary
injunction and in making findings of fact unsupported by the record. We
vacate the trial court's order and remand1 pursuant to Rule 220, SCACR and
the following authorities:

1. As to whether the trial court erred in issuing the preliminary
injunction: Compton v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 392 S.C. 361, 366, 709 S.E.2d
639, 642 (2011) ("Whether to grant a preliminary injunction is left to the
sound discretion of the trial court." ); Peak v. Spartanburg Reg'l Healthcare
Sys., 367 S.C. 450, 454, 626 S.E.2d 34, 36 (Ct. App. 2005) ("An abuse of
discretion occurs when the decision of the trial court is unsupported by the
evidence or controlled by an error of law."); Rule 201(e), SCRE ("A party is
entitled upon timely request to an opportunity to be heard as to the propriety
of taking judicial notice and the tenor of the matter noticed. In the absence of
prior notification, the request may be made after judicial notice has been
taken.").

2. As to the remaining issues: Futch v. McAllister Towing of
Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613, 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (stating
when one issue is dispositive of a case, the appellate court need not address
any remaining issues).

VACATED AND REMANDED.

WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.