G Cite
Treatment trajectory · 1986 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1986
2006
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 22 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
SCDSS v. Velasquez
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (quoted)
service of the notice of intent to appeal is a jurisdictional requirement, and an appellate court has no authority to extend or expand the time in which the notice of intent to appeal must be served.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
SCDSS v. Smalls
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (quoted)
service of the notice of intent to appeal is a jurisdictional requirement, and an appellate court has no authority to extend or expand the time in which the notice of intent to appeal must be served.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Transportation Associates v. Bishop
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (quoted)
service of the notice of intent to appeal is a jurisdictional requirement, and this court has no authority to extend or expand the time in which the notice of intent to appeal must be served.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Dustin Lee Hooper
Co. v. Ball Corp., 336 S.C. 1, 5 , 518 S.E.2d 56, 59 (Ct. App. 1999) (noting that a Rule 60 motion "d[oes] not toll the time for the filing and service of [a] notice of appeal"); Camp v. Camp, 386 S.C. 571, 574-75 , 689 S.E.2d 634, 636 (2010) ("Service of the notice of appeal is a 'jurisdictional requirement, and [the appellate c]ourt has no authority to extend or expand the time in which the notice of intent to appeal must be served.'" (quoting Mears v. Mears, 287 S.C. 168, 169 , 337 S.E.2d 206, 207 (1985))).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Smith v. Newton
The notice of intention to appeal to the circuit court must be filed in the office of the circuit court and in the office of the probate court and a copy served on all parties not in default within ten days after receipt of written notice of the appealed from order, sentence, or decree of the probate court."); Mears v. Mears, 287 S.C. 168, 169 , 337 S.E.2d 206, 207 (1985) (holding service of the notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement and appellate courts have no authority to extend the time in which parties must serve the notice of intent to appeal).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lemmons v. Macedonia Water Works, Inc.
(Rule 50, SCRCP), motion to alter or amend the judgment (Rules 52 and 59, SCRCP), or a motion for a new trial (Rule 59, SCRCP) has been made, the time for appeal for all parties shall be stayed and shall run from receipt of written notice of entry of the order granting or denying such motion."); Camp v. Camp, 386 S.C. 571 , 574–75, 689 S.E.2d 634, 636 (2010) ("Service of the notice of appeal is a 'jurisdictional requirement, and this [c]ourt has no authority to extend or expand the time in which the notice of intent to appeal must be served.'" (quoting Mears v. Mears, 287 S.C. 168, 169 , 337…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Baracco v, Beaufort County
Co. v. Ball Corp., 336 S.C. 1, 5 , 518 S.E.2d 56, 59 (Ct. App. 1999) (noting that a Rule 60 motion "d[oes] not toll the time for the filing and service of [a] notice of appeal"); Mears v. Mears, 287 S.C. 168, 169 , 337 S.E.2d 206, 207 (1985) (explaining service of the notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement and the appellate courts have no authority to extend the time in which parties must serve the notice of intent to appeal).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Oliver v. Lawrence
We dismiss the appeal pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Rule 203(b)(1), SCACR ("A notice of appeal shall be served on all respondents within thirty (30) days after receipt of written notice of entry of the order or judgment."); id. ("When a timely . . . motion to alter or amend the judgment . . . has been made, the time for appeal for all parties shall be stayed and shall run from receipt of written notice of entry of the order granting or denying such motion."); Camp v. Camp, 386 S.C. 571, 574-75 , 689 S.E.2d 634, 636 (2010) ("Service of the notice of appeal is a …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Sistrunk
Co. v. Ball Corp., 336 S.C. 1, 3 , 518 S.E.2d 56, 58 (Ct. App. 1999) ("[A] second motion for reconsideration is appropriate only if it challenges something that was altered from the original judgment as a result of the initial motion for reconsideration."); Camp v. Camp, 386 S.C. 571, 574-75 , 689 S.E.2d 634, 636 (2010) ("Service of the notice of appeal is a 'jurisdictional requirement, and [the appellate c]ourt has no authority to extend or expand the time in which the notice of intent to appeal must be served.'" (quoting Mears v. Mears, 287 S.C. 168, 169 , 337 S.E.2d 206, 207 (1985))).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
SCDCA v. Entera Holdings
Code Ann. § 1-23-600 (B) (Supp. 2014) ("All requests for a hearing before the [ALC] must be filed in accordance with the [ALC's] rules of procedure."); Rule 11(C), SCALCR (stating a request for a contested case hearing before the ALC "must be filed and served within thirty (30) days after actual or constructive notice of the agency's determination"); Botany Bay Marina, Inc. v. Townsend, 296 S.C. 330, 334 , 372 S.E.2d 584, 585-86 (1988) (finding the failure to appeal the Board of Adjustment's zoning decision within the fifteen days allowed for filing an appeal divested the Board of Adjustment …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Johnson v. Mew
We dismiss. 1 "Service of the notice of intent to appeal is a jurisdictional requirement, and this [c]ourt has no authority to extend or expand the time in which the notice of intent to appeal must be served." Mears v. Mears, 287 S.C. 168, 169 , 337 S.E.2d 206, 207 (1985).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Camp v. Camp
Service of the notice of appeal is a "jurisdictional requirement, and this Court has no authority to extend or expand the time in which *575 the notice of intent to appeal must be served." Mears v. Mears, 287 S.C. 168, 169 , 337 S.E.2d 206, 207 (1985).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Timothy Davis v. SC Department of Corrections
We affirm [1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Rule 68, SCALCR (providing that the South Carolina Appellate Court Rules and the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure be applied "in proceedings before the [ALC] to resolve questions not addressed by these rules"); Rule 234(b), SCACR (finding the time for serving the notice of appeal may not be "extended or shortened."); Rule 59, SCALCR ("The notice of appeal from the final decision to be heard by the [ALC] shall be filed with the Court and a copy served on each party, including the agency, within thirty (30) days …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
South Carolina Coastal Conservation League v. South Carolina Department of Health & Environmental Control
“Service of the notice of intent to appeal is a jurisdictional requirement, and [an appeals court] has no authority to extend or expand the time in which the notice of intent to appeal must be served.” Mears v. Mears, 287 S.C. 168, 169 , 337 S.E.2d 206, 207 (1985) (citing Stroup v. Duke Power Co., 216 S.C. 79 , 56 S.E.2d 745 (1949); Wade v. Gore, 154 S.C. 262 , 151 S.E. 470 (1930); Renneker v. Warren, 20 S.C. 581 (1884)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Kemppinen v. Alltel, South Carolina
Mears v. Mears , 287 S.C. 168, 169 , 337 S.E.2d 206, 207 (1985).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Keowee Invest ment Group, LLC v. Pickens County
The timely service of the notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement, and the appellate courts have no authority to “extend or expand the time in which the notice of appeal must be served.” Mears v. Mears , 287 S.C. 168, 169 , 337 S.E.2d 206, 207 (1985) (interpreting former Supreme Court Rule 1, §§ 1 A and 1 C).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Brown
“Service of the notice of intent to appeal is a jurisdictional requirement, and this Court has no authority to extend or expand the time in which the notice of intent to appeal must be served.” Mears v. Mears, 287 S.C. 168, 169 , 337 S.E.2d 206, 207 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Stewart
(2×)
See Mears v. Mears, 287 S.C. 168, 169 , 337 S.E.2d 206, 207 (1985) (explaining timely service of the notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement, and the appellate courts have no authority to extend the time in which the notice of intent to appeal must be served).
discussed
Cited "see"
Fields v. Regional Medical Center Orangeburg
(2×)
See Mears v. Mears, 287 S.C. 168 , 337 S.E.2d 206 (1985); Rule 203(b)(1), SCACR.
discussed
Cited "see"
Lovette c. Sonoco Products
(2×)
See Mears v. Mears , 287 S.C. 168 , 337 S.E.2d 206 (1985) (timely service of the notice of appeal is jurisdictional requirement that cannot be extended or expanded).
discussed
Cited "see"
Quality Trailer Products, Inc. v. CSL Equipment Co.
(2×)
See Mears v. Mears, 287 S.C. 168 , 337 S.E.2d 206 (1985) (timely service of the notice of intent to appeal is a jurisdictional requirement, and this Court has no authority to extend or expand the time in which the notice of intent to appeal must be served).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Robertson v. Mitchell
(2×)
See, e.g. , Mears v. Mears , 287 S.C. 168 , 337 S.E.2d 206 (1985) (stating the time for service of the notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement and the time for service may not be extended by an appellate court).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Patricia Flatley MEARS, Respondent,
v.
George Stephen MEARS, Appellant
v.
George Stephen MEARS, Appellant
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Aug 29, 1985.
Cited by 32 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of South Caro… (3)
ORDER
Appellant petitions this Court to relax Supreme Court Rule 1, § 1 A and § 1 C. Respondent has filed a return in which she opposes the petition.
Appellant’s counsel received written notice that the order had been rendered on April 29,1985. Appellant did not serve the notice of intent to appeal on opposing counsel until June 14, 1985.
Under Supreme Court Rule 1, § 1 A, the notice of intent to appeal should have been served on the opposing party or his attorney within ten (10) days of receipt of written notice that the order had been rendered. Therefore, appellant’s service of the notice of intent to appeal was untimely by some thirty-six (36) days.
Service of the notice of intent to appeal is a jurisdictional requirement, and this Court has no authority to extend or expand the time in which the notice of intent to appeal must be served. Stroup v. Duke Power Co., 216 S. C. 79, 56 S. E. (2d) 745 (1949); Wade v. Gore, 154 S. C. 262, 151 S. E. 470 (1930); Renneker v. Warren, 20 S. C. 581 (1884). Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. First Carolina National Bank v. A & S Enterprises, Inc., 272 S. C. 339, 251 S. E. (2d) 762 (1979).
We note that Act No. 100 of 1985 has repealed S. C. Code Ann. § 18-9-60 (1976) upon which Supreme Court Rule 1, § 1 A, is based. Despite this repeal, the timely service of the notice of intent to appeal will remain a jurisdictional requirement.
It is so ordered.