Greene v. Greene

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

Sandra Greene
and Joel Greene, Appellants,

v.

The Gaffney
Ledger, Inc. and L. Cody Sossamon, Respondents.

Appeal From Cherokee County

J. Mark Hayes, II, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2011-UP-083

Submitted  February 1, 2011 – Filed
February 24, 2011

AFFIRMED

Lovic A. Brooks, III, of Columbia, for
Appellants.

Jay Bender and Holly Palmer Beeson, of
Columbia, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM: Sandra Greene and Joel Greene (Appellants) appeal the
circuit court’s grant of summary judgment on their claims for outrage and libel
in favor of The Gaffney Ledger, Inc. and L. Cody Sossamon (Respondents). On
appeal, Appellants argue the circuit court erred in: (1) ruling that expert
medical testimony was necessary as a matter of law to prove outrage; (2)
granting summary judgment on the claim for outrage based on grounds not urged
by Respondents; and (3) finding that the alleged defamatory statements were not
false.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1.  As to issue (1): Hansson v.
Scalise Builders of S.C., 374 S.C. 352, 357-58, 650 S.E.2d 68,
71 (2007) (stating that a trial court must determine whether the plaintiff
has established that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to each of the
four elements of the tort of outrage when ruling on a summary judgment motion); id. at 358, 650 S.E.2d at 72 (stating a court must look for more than mere
bald assertions, but rather corroborating evidence in order to prove evidence
of damages resulting from emotional distress when ruling on a summary judgment
motion).

2.  As to issue (2): Transp. Ins.
Co. & Flagstar Corp. v. S.C. Second Injury Fund, 389 S.C. 422,
432, 699 S.E.2d 687, 692 (2010) ("[S]hort, conclusory statements made
without supporting authority are deemed abandoned on appeal and therefore not preserved for our review."); Cullen
v. McNeal, 390 S.C. 472, 492, 702 S.E.2d 378, 390 (Ct. App. 2010)
(ruling that because the circuit court did not rule on the arguments and
because no Rule 59(e), SCRCP motion was filed, the arguments were not preserved
for appellate review); Cheap-O's Truck Stop, Inc. v. Cloyd, 350 S.C.
596, 605, 567 S.E.2d 514, 518 (Ct. App. 2002) (stating a Form 4 order is
not effective as a final order if the circuit court specifies that the final order
will be prepared by the attorney).

3.  As to issue (3): Philadelphia
Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767, 768-69, 106 S.Ct. 1558,
1559 (1986) ("[W]e hold that, at least where a newspaper publishes
speech of public  concern, a private-figure
plaintiff cannot recover damages without also showing that the statements at
issue are false."); Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323,
339-40, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 3007 (1974) ("Under the First Amendment there
is no such thing as a false idea.  However pernicious an opinion may seem, we
depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries but on the competition of other
ideas."); Transp. Ins. Co. & Flagstar Corp.,  389 S.C. at
431, 699 S.E.2d at 692 (stating an issue which is unappealed becomes the law
of the case); Erickson v. Jones St. Publishers, LLC, 368 S.C. 444,
466, 629 S.E.2d 653, 665 (2006) (stating that when a case involves a
private figure plaintiff but an issue of public controversy or concern
published by a media defendant, the plaintiff has the burden of proving common
law malice and showing actual injury in the form of general or special damages). 

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, SHORT,
and PIEPER, JJ., concur.

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