Summary
The Supreme Court of South Carolina affirmed a circuit court order granting summary judgment to Palmetto Princess, LLC, holding that the Town of Edisto Beach exceeded its authority under South Carolina Constitution article VIII, section 14, by prohibiting gambling day cruises that were lawful under state law at the relevant time. The court did not reach the Johnson Act preemption issue, which was not before it on appeal.
Holdings
- Yes. Because South Carolina law permitted gambling day cruises at the relevant time, Edisto Beach exceeded its municipal authority and violated article VIII, § 14, by enacting an ordinance that made that activity unlawful.
- Yes. The circuit court properly granted Palmetto Princess summary judgment because the Town exceeded its legal authority in enacting Ordinance § 58-138.
Questions Presented
- Whether Edisto Beach Ordinance § 58-138 violated article VIII, § 14, of the South Carolina Constitution by making unlawful conduct that state law permitted.
- Whether the circuit court properly granted Palmetto Princess summary judgment.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (8)
- Stardancer Casino, Inc. v. Stewart, 347 S.C. 377, 556 S.E.2d 357 (2001)(followed)
- Connor v. Town of Hilton Head Island, 314 S.C. 251, 442 S.E.2d 608 (1994)(followed)
- Diamonds v. Greenville County, 325 S.C. 154, 480 S.E.2d 718 (1997)(followed)
- Quality Towing, Inc. v. City of Myrtle Beach, 340 S.C. 29, 530 S.E.2d 369 (2000)(distinguished)
- Cunningham ex rel. Grice v. Helping Hands, Inc., 352 S.C. 485, 575 S.E.2d 549 (2003)(followed)
- Davis v. County of Greenville, 313 S.C. 459, 443 S.E.2d 383 (1994)(cited in dissent)
- First Baptist Church of Mauldin v. City of Mauldin, 308 S.C. 226, 417 S.E.2d 592 (1992)(cited in dissent)
- Stardancer Casino, Inc. v. Stewart, 347 S.C. 377, 556 S.E.2d 357 (2001)(criticized in dissent)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…