Raymond Johnson v. Cale Yarborough Honda Mazda

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

Raymond
Johnson, Appellant,

v.

Cale Yarborough
Honda Mazda, Employer, and SC Automobile Dealers Assoc./The Randolph Hope
Co., Carrier, Respondents.

Appeal From Florence County

Thomas A. Russo, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-109

Submitted February 1, 2010 – Filed
February 8, 2010   

APPEAL DISMISSED

Raymond Johnson, pro se, of
Florence, for Appellant.

Louise Elaine Mozingo, of
Camden, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM:  In this workers' compensation case, Raymond Johnson
appeals the circuit court's order reversing the decision of the Appellate Panel
of the Workers' Compensation Commission in part.  We dismiss this appeal[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: Curtis v.
State, 345 S.C. 557, 567, 549 S.E.2d 591, 596 (2001) ("An appellate
court will not pass on moot and academic questions or make an adjudication
where there remains no actual controversy."); Byrd
v. Irmo High Sch., 321 S.C. 426, 431, 468 S.E.2d 861, 864 (1996) (quoting Mathis
v. S.C. State Highway Dep't, 260 S.C. 344, 346, 195 S.E.2d 713, 715 (1973))
("Mootness has been defined as follows: 'A case becomes moot when
judgment, if rendered, will have no practical legal effect upon existing
controversy.  This is true when some event occurs making it impossible for the
reviewing Court to grant effectual relief.'"); Gainey v. Gainey,
279 S.C. 68, 69, 301 S.E.2d 763, 764 (1983) ("This Court will not issue advisory opinions
on questions for which no meaningful relief can be granted.").

APPEAL DISMISSED.

HUFF, THOMAS, and
KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

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