Town of Scranton v. Willoughby, 412 S.E.2d 424 (S.C. 1991). · Go Syfert
Search
Town of Scranton v. Willoughby, 412 S.E.2d 424 (S.C. 1991). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
36 citation events (25 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993 2009 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) John's Marine Service, Inc. v. Oconee County BZA
S.C. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
"The exercise of police power under a municipal ordinance is subject to judicial correction only if the action is arbitrary and has no reasonable relation to a lawful purpose." Town of Scranton v. Willoughby, 306 S.C. 421, 422 , 412 S.E.2d 424, 425 (1991) (per curiam).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Ani Creation v. City of Myrtle Beach (3×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
S.C. · 2023 · confidence medium
"A municipal ordinance is a legislative enactment and is presumed to be constitutional." Town of Scranton v. Willoughby, 306 S.C. 421, 422 , 412 S.E.2d 424, 425 (1991) (per curiam); see also Rush v. City of Greenville, 246 S.C. 268, 276 , 143 S.E.2d 527, 531 (1965) ("There is a strong presumption in favor of the validity of municipal zoning ordinances, and in favor of the validity of their application . . . .").
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Dunes West Golf Club, LLC v. Town of Mount Pleasant
S.C. · 2013 · confidence medium
“The burden of proving the invalidity of a zoning ordinance is on the party attacking it, and it is incumbent on respondent to show the arbitrary and capricious character of the ordinance through clear and convincing evidence.” Town, of Scranton v. Willoughby, 306 S.C. 421, 422 , 412 S.E.2d 424, 425 (1991). “[I]n cases requiring a heightened burden of proof ... the non-moving party must submit more than a mere scintilla of evidence to withstand a motion for summary judgment.” Hancock v. Mid-S. Mgmt.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Historic Charleston Foundation v. City of Charleston
S.C. · 2012 · confidence medium
Town of Scranton v. Willoughby, 306 S.C. 421, 422 , 412 S.E.2d 424, 425 (1991) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) McMaster v. Columbia Board of Zoning Appeals
S.C. · 2011 · confidence medium
“A municipal ordinance is a legislative enactment and is presumed to be constitutional.” Town of Scranton v. Willoughby, 306 S.C. 421, 422 , 412 S.E.2d 424, 425 (1992). “[E]very presumption will be made in favor of the constitutionality of a legislative enactment; and a statute will be declared unconstitutional only when its invalidity appears so clearly as to leave no room for reasonable doubt that it violates some provision of the Constitution.” Harris, 391 S.C. at 154 , 705 S.E.2d at 55 . “[T]he power to declare an ordinance invalid because it is so unreasonable as to impair or de…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) McMaster v. COLUMBIA BD. OF ZONING APPEALS
S.C. · 2011 · confidence medium
"A municipal ordinance is a legislative enactment and is presumed to be constitutional." Town of Scranton v. Willoughby, 306 S.C. 421, 422 , 412 S.E.2d 424, 425 (1992). "[E]very presumption will be made in favor of the constitutionality of a legislative enactment; and a statute will be declared unconstitutional only when its invalidity appears so clearly as to leave no room for reasonable doubt that it violates some provision of the Constitution." Harris, 391 S.C. at 154 , 705 S.E.2d at 55 . "[T]he power to declare an ordinance invalid because it is so unreasonable as to impair or destroy cons…
cited Cited as authority (rule) City of Beaufort v. Holcombe
S.C. Ct. App. · 2006 · confidence medium
Town of Scranton v. Willoughby, 306 S.C. 421, 422 , 412 S.E.2d 424, 425 (1991). 17 .
examined Cited "see" King v. City of Bainbridge (3×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Ga. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See Robinson Township v. Knoll, 410 Mich. 293 , 302 N.W.2d 146, 152 (1981). [21] Id. [22] Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 395 , 47 S.Ct. 114 , 71 L.Ed. 303 (1926). [23] See, e.g., Town of Scranton v. Willoughby, 306 S.C. 421 , 412 S.E.2d 424 (S.C.1991); McCollum v. City of Berea, 53 S.W.3d 106 (Ky.App.2000) and cases cited in n. 17-29.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
TOWN OF SCRANTON, South Carolina, a Municipal Corp., Appellant
v.
Amar WILLOUGHBY, Respondent
23542.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Dec 16, 1991.
412 S.E.2d 424
Manan D. Nettles and E. LeRoy Nettles, Sr., of Nettles, Turbeville & Reddick, and James R. Epps, of Floyd & Epps, Lake City, for appellant., L. Hunter Limbaugh and Mark W. Buyck, Jr., of Willcox, McLeod, Buyck, Baker & Williams, Florence, for respondent.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 14 opinions  |  Published
[*422] Per Curiam:

This appeal is from an action seeking a mandatory injunction requiring removal of a mobile home from an area not zoned for mobile home use. We reverse and remand.

The Town of Scranton enacted a comprehensive zoning ordinance, for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community. As a part of the Town’s zoning ordinance, all mobile homes are required to be placed in a designated mobile home district. Respondent, Amar Willoughby, set up his mobile home in an area not zoned for mobile home use, after which the Town sought the mandatory injunction. The trial judge found that the zoning ordinance of Scranton, to the extent that it excludes mobile homes from ali areas except mobile home districts, is unconstitutional and an unreasonable exercise of its police power.

A municipal ordinance is a legislative enactment and is presumed to be constitutional. Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Co. v. City of Spartanburg, 285 S.C. 495, 331 S.E. (2d) 333 (1985). The exercise of police power under a municipal ordinance is subject to judicial correction only if the action is arbitrary and has no reasonable relation to a lawful purpose. Town of Hilton Head Island v. Fine Liquors, Ltd., 302 S.C. 550, 397 S.E. (2d) 662 (1990), Bob Jones University v. Greenville, 243 S.C. 351, 133 S.E. (2d) 843 (1963).

The burden of proving the invalidity of a zoning ordinance is on the party attacking it, and it is incumbent on respondent to show the arbitrary and capricious character of the ordinance through clear and convincing evidence. See Rush v. City of Greenville, 246 S.C. 268, 143 S.E. (2d) 527 (1965). The record as submitted to this court is void of evidence to find the Town of Scranton’s zoning ordinance arbitrary and capricious. In the absence of such record, the ordinance is valid and enforceable.

Accordingly, the decision of the trial court is reversed and remanded with instructions to enter an order granting the appellant the relief requested.