Monday, December 22, 2014

SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

CAPTION:
SCDMV vs. Carolyn Ann Henderson

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles

PARTIES:
Appellant:
South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles

Respondents:
Carolyn Ann Henderson
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
06-ALJ-21-0096-AP

APPEARANCES:
n/a
 

ORDERS:

PETITIONER FOR REHEARING OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT

TO: The Honorable Ralph King Anderson, III, and Frank L. Valenta, Esquire, Kelli M. Maddox, Esquire & Michael D. Truesdale, Esquire, Attorneys for Appellant above named:

In accordance with Rule 221 of the South Carolina Appellate Court Rules[1], Rule 29 (D) of the Rules of Procedure for the Administrative Law Court and Rule 59 (e) of the South Caroline Rules of Civil Procedure, Respondent hereby moves for a Rehearing of this matter or, in the alternative for an Order altering or amending this Court’s Order reversing the DMVH Hearing Officer’s decision in the above referenced case filed August 25, 2006.

Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-380(A)(6) (2005), this Court can reverse if substantial rights of DMV have been prejudiced. See also, Tall Tower, Inc. v. South Carolina Procurement Review Panel, 294 S.C. 225, 363 S.E.2d 683 (1987) (holding lower court erred in failing to reverse pursuant to § 1-23-380 when evidence in the record indicated substantial rights were “greatly prejudiced”). DMV made no such argument and nothing in this record even remotely suggests that DMV has been prejudiced. Further, this Court’s ruling failed to address how, if at all, substantial rights of DMV were prejudiced based upon the existing record. At no time did the arresting officer testify or present a witness indicating how DMV or the arresting officer would be prejudiced if the suspension was rescinded. Accordingly, the Hearing Officer’s Order should have been affirmed and this Court should reverse its Order filed August 25, 2006.

MOORE, TAYLOR & THOMAS, P.A.

By:_____________________________

Heath P. Taylor

1700 Sunset Boulevard

Post Office Box 5709

West Columbia, South Carolina 29169

(803) 796-9160

and

Pete G. Diamaduros

White, Diamaduros & Diamaduros

108 West South Street

Post Office Drawer 643

Union, South Carolina 20379

(864) 429-4744

Attorneys for Respondent

West Columbia, South Carolina

August 29, 2006



[1] Although Rule 59(e), SCRCP would appear to be the appropriate rule addressing this motion, the notes to ALC Rule 40 appear to indicate that the South Carolina Appellate Court Rules are applicable.