law of the case doctrine in South Carolina

2024Turning to whether the Foreclosure Order is the law of the case, "Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, a party is precluded from relitigating, after an appeal, matters that were either not raised on appeal, but should have been, or raised on appeal, but expressly rejected by the appellate court." Flexon v. PHC-Jasper, Inc., 413 S.C. 561, 571 , 776 S.E.2d 397, 403 (Ct. App. 2015) (quoting Judy v. Martin, 381 S.C. 455, 458 , 674 S.E.2d 151, 153 (2009)).

2024Turning to whether the Foreclosure Order is the law of the case, "Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, a party is precluded from relitigating, after an appeal, matters that were either not raised on appeal, but should have been, or raised on appeal, but expressly rejected by the appellate court." Flexon v. PHC-Jasper, Inc., 413 S.C. 561, 571 , 776 S.E.2d 397, 403 (Ct. App. 2015) (quoting Judy v. Martin, 381 S.C. 455, 458 , 674 S.E.2d 151, 153 (2009)).

2025See Shirley's Iron Works, Inc. v. City of Union, 403 S.C. 560, 573 , 743 S.E.2d 778, 785 (2013) ("The doctrine of the law of the case applies to an order or ruling which finally determines a substantial right.").

2025See Shirley's Iron Works, Inc. v. City of Union, 403 S.C. 560, 573 , 743 S.E.2d 778, 785 (2013) ("The doctrine of the law of the case applies to an order or ruling which finally determines a substantial right.").

2024Coastal Conservation League, 363 S.C. at 76 , 610 S.E.2d at 487 ("A ruling not challenged on appeal is the law of the case, regardless of the correctness of the ruling."); Shirley's Iron Works, Inc., 403 S.C. at 573, 743 S.E.2d at 785 ("The doctrine of the law of the case applies to an order or ruling which finally determines a substantial right." (quoting Weil, 299 S.C. at 89 , 382 S.E.2d at 473 )); id. ("This [s]tate has a long-standing rule that one judge of the same court cannot overrule another."); Adeimy v. Dleykan, 116 S.C. 159, 163 , 107 S.E. 35, 36 (1921) (providing that in a claim an

2024Coastal Conservation League, 363 S.C. at 76 , 610 S.E.2d at 487 ("A ruling not challenged on appeal is the law of the case, regardless of the correctness of the ruling."); Shirley's Iron Works, Inc., 403 S.C. at 573, 743 S.E.2d at 785 ("The doctrine of the law of the case applies to an order or ruling which finally determines a substantial right." (quoting Weil, 299 S.C. at 89 , 382 S.E.2d at 473 )); id. ("This [s]tate has a long-standing rule that one judge of the same court cannot overrule another."); Adeimy v. Dleykan, 116 S.C. 159, 163 , 107 S.E. 35, 36 (1921) (providing that in a claim an

2024Turning to whether the Foreclosure Order is the law of the case, "Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, a party is precluded from relitigating, after an appeal, matters that were either not raised on appeal, but should have been, or raised on appeal, but expressly rejected by the appellate court." Flexon v. PHC-Jasper, Inc., 413 S.C. 561, 571 , 776 S.E.2d 397, 403 (Ct. App. 2015) (quoting Judy v. Martin, 381 S.C. 455, 458 , 674 S.E.2d 151, 153 (2009)).

2024Turning to whether the Foreclosure Order is the law of the case, "Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, a party is precluded from relitigating, after an appeal, matters that were either not raised on appeal, but should have been, or raised on appeal, but expressly rejected by the appellate court." Flexon v. PHC-Jasper, Inc., 413 S.C. 561, 571 , 776 S.E.2d 397, 403 (Ct. App. 2015) (quoting Judy v. Martin, 381 S.C. 455, 458 , 674 S.E.2d 151, 153 (2009)).

2013See Judy v. Martin, 381 S.C. 455, 458 , 674 S.E.2d 151, 153 (2009) (citing Bakala v. Bakala, 352 S.C. 612, 632 , 576 S.E.2d 156, 166 (2003)) (stating that under the law of the case doctrine, “a party is precluded from relitigating, after an appeal, matters that were either not raised on appeal, but should have been, or raised on appeal, but expressly rejected by the appellate court”).

2013See Judy v. Martin, 381 S.C. 455, 458 , 674 S.E.2d 151, 153 (2009) (citing Bakala v. Bakala, 352 S.C. 612, 632 , 576 S.E.2d 156, 166 (2003)) (stating that under the law of the case doctrine, “a party is precluded from relitigating, after an appeal, matters that were either not raised on appeal, but should have been, or raised on appeal, but expressly rejected by the appellate court”).

2016See Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613 , 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (finding it unnecessary to address remaining issues when disposition of a prior issue is dispositive). 4 We note the law of the case doctrine is inapplicable to this issue.

2016See Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613 , 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (finding it unnecessary to address remaining issues when disposition of a prior issue is dispositive). 4 We note the law of the case doctrine is inapplicable to this issue.

2024Hudson v. Lancaster Convalescent Ctr., 407 S.C. 112, 119 , 754 S.E.2d 486, 490 (2014) ("Under the law of the case doctrine, a party is precluded from re-litigating issues decided in a lower court order, when the party voluntarily abandons its appeal of that order."); Munoz v. Green Tree Fin.

2024Hudson v. Lancaster Convalescent Ctr., 407 S.C. 112, 119 , 754 S.E.2d 486, 490 (2014) ("Under the law of the case doctrine, a party is precluded from re-litigating issues decided in a lower court order, when the party voluntarily abandons its appeal of that order."); Munoz v. Green Tree Fin.

2022See State v. Hewins, 409 S.C. 93 , 113 n.5, 760 S.E.2d 814 , 824 n.5 (2014) (stating the law of the case doctrine "is a discretionary appellate doctrine with no preclusive effect on successive trial proceedings").

2022See State v. Hewins, 409 S.C. 93 , 113 n.5, 760 S.E.2d 814 , 824 n.5 (2014) (stating the law of the case doctrine "is a discretionary appellate doctrine with no preclusive effect on successive trial proceedings").

2020"It is a fundamental rule of law that an appellate court will affirm a ruling by a lower court if the offended party does not challenge that ruling." Lindsay v. Lindsay, 328 S.C. 329, 338 , 491 S.E.2d 583, 588 (Ct. App. 1997).

2020"It is a fundamental rule of law that an appellate court will affirm a ruling by a lower court if the offended party does not challenge that ruling." Lindsay v. Lindsay, 328 S.C. 329, 338 , 491 S.E.2d 583, 588 (Ct. App. 1997).

2023Dep't of Health & Env't Control, 412 S.C. 244, 250 , 772 S.E.2d 505, 508 (2015) ("Thus, should the appealing party fail to raise all of the grounds upon which a lower court's decision was based, those unappealed findings—whether correct or not—become the law of the case."); Judy v. Martin, 381 S.C. 455, 458 , 674 S.E.2d 151, 153 (2009) ("Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, a party is precluded from relitigating, after an appeal, matters that were either not raised on appeal, but should have been, or raised on appeal, but expressly rejected by the appellate court."); C.

2023Dep't of Health & Env't Control, 412 S.C. 244, 250 , 772 S.E.2d 505, 508 (2015) ("Thus, should the appealing party fail to raise all of the grounds upon which a lower court's decision was based, those unappealed findings—whether correct or not—become the law of the case."); Judy v. Martin, 381 S.C. 455, 458 , 674 S.E.2d 151, 153 (2009) ("Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, a party is precluded from relitigating, after an appeal, matters that were either not raised on appeal, but should have been, or raised on appeal, but expressly rejected by the appellate court."); C.

2022Co., 231 S.C. 351, 357 , 98 S.E.2d 798, 800 (1957) (explaining the law of the case doctrine is inapplicable when the evidence has materially changed).

2022Co., 231 S.C. 351, 357 , 98 S.E.2d 798, 800 (1957) (explaining the law of the case doctrine is inapplicable when the evidence has materially changed).

2020See Crisp, 401 S.C. at 641 , 738 S.E.2d at 842 ("The claimant has the burden of proving facts that will bring the injury within the workers' compensation law, and such award must not be based on surmise, conjecture or speculation." (quoting Clade, 330 S.C. at 11 , 496 S.E.2d at 857 )); see also Turner, 419 S.C. at 105 , 796 S.E.2d at 154 ("For an accidental injury to be compensable, it must 'aris[e] out of and in the course of employment.'" (quoting § 3 Although we do not need to reach the issue of whether the single commissioner's finding that Frampton failed to meet his burden of proof is th

2020See Crisp, 401 S.C. at 641 , 738 S.E.2d at 842 ("The claimant has the burden of proving facts that will bring the injury within the workers' compensation law, and such award must not be based on surmise, conjecture or speculation." (quoting Clade, 330 S.C. at 11 , 496 S.E.2d at 857 )); see also Turner, 419 S.C. at 105 , 796 S.E.2d at 154 ("For an accidental injury to be compensable, it must 'aris[e] out of and in the course of employment.'" (quoting § 3 Although we do not need to reach the issue of whether the single commissioner's finding that Frampton failed to meet his burden of proof is th

2020See Crisp, 401 S.C. at 641 , 738 S.E.2d at 842 ("The claimant has the burden of proving facts that will bring the injury within the workers' compensation law, and such award must not be based on surmise, conjecture or speculation." (quoting Clade, 330 S.C. at 11 , 496 S.E.2d at 857 )); see also Turner, 419 S.C. at 105 , 796 S.E.2d at 154 ("For an accidental injury to be compensable, it must 'aris[e] out of and in the course of employment.'" (quoting § 3 Although we do not need to reach the issue of whether the single commissioner's finding that Frampton failed to meet his burden of proof is th

2020See Crisp, 401 S.C. at 641 , 738 S.E.2d at 842 ("The claimant has the burden of proving facts that will bring the injury within the workers' compensation law, and such award must not be based on surmise, conjecture or speculation." (quoting Clade, 330 S.C. at 11 , 496 S.E.2d at 857 )); see also Turner, 419 S.C. at 105 , 796 S.E.2d at 154 ("For an accidental injury to be compensable, it must 'aris[e] out of and in the course of employment.'" (quoting § 3 Although we do not need to reach the issue of whether the single commissioner's finding that Frampton failed to meet his burden of proof is th

2015Univ. of S.C., 328 S.C. 51, 62 , 492 S.E.2d 62, 68 (1997); see In re Grossinger’s Assocs., 184 B.R. 429, 434 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1995) (“Closely related to the doctrines of claim and issue preclusion is the doctrine of law of the case, which holds that a decision on an issue of law made at one stage of a case becomes binding precedent to be followed in subsequent stages of the same litigation.” (quotation marks omitted)).

2015Univ. of S.C., 328 S.C. 51, 62 , 492 S.E.2d 62, 68 (1997); see In re Grossinger’s Assocs., 184 B.R. 429, 434 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1995) (“Closely related to the doctrines of claim and issue preclusion is the doctrine of law of the case, which holds that a decision on an issue of law made at one stage of a case becomes binding precedent to be followed in subsequent stages of the same litigation.” (quotation marks omitted)).

2020See Crisp, 401 S.C. at 641 , 738 S.E.2d at 842 ("The claimant has the burden of proving facts that will bring the injury within the workers' compensation law, and such award must not be based on surmise, conjecture or speculation." (quoting Clade, 330 S.C. at 11 , 496 S.E.2d at 857 )); see also Turner, 419 S.C. at 105 , 796 S.E.2d at 154 ("For an accidental injury to be compensable, it must 'aris[e] out of and in the course of employment.'" (quoting § 3 Although we do not need to reach the issue of whether the single commissioner's finding that Frampton failed to meet his burden of proof is th

2020See Crisp, 401 S.C. at 641 , 738 S.E.2d at 842 ("The claimant has the burden of proving facts that will bring the injury within the workers' compensation law, and such award must not be based on surmise, conjecture or speculation." (quoting Clade, 330 S.C. at 11 , 496 S.E.2d at 857 )); see also Turner, 419 S.C. at 105 , 796 S.E.2d at 154 ("For an accidental injury to be compensable, it must 'aris[e] out of and in the course of employment.'" (quoting § 3 Although we do not need to reach the issue of whether the single commissioner's finding that Frampton failed to meet his burden of proof is th

2017See Judy v. Martin, 381 S.C. 455, 458 , 674 S.E.2d 151, 153 (2009) ("Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, a party is precluded from relitigating, after an appeal, matters that were either not raised on appeal, but should have been, or raised on appeal, but expressly rejected by the appellate court."); Flexon v. PHC- Jasper, Inc., 413 S.C. 561, 572 , 776 S.E.2d 397, 403 (Ct. App. 2015) ("[A] decision on an issue of law made at one stage of a case becomes binding precedent to be followed in subsequent stages of the same litigation." (quoting In re Grossinger's Assocs., 184 B.R. 429, 434 (Bankr.

2015Univ. of S.C., 328 S.C. 51, 62 , 492 S.E.2d 62, 68 (1997); see In re Grossinger’s Assocs., 184 B.R. 429, 434 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1995) (“Closely related to the doctrines of claim and issue preclusion is the doctrine of law of the case, which holds that a decision on an issue of law made at one stage of a case becomes binding precedent to be followed in subsequent stages of the same litigation.” (quotation marks omitted)).

2013Code Ann. § 15-3-530 (1) (2005) (providing that actions for breach of contract must be commenced within three years); Judy v. Martin, 381 S.C. 455, 458 , 674 S.E.2d 151, 153 (2009) ("Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, a party is precluded from relitigating, after an appeal, matters that were either not raised on appeal, but should have been, or raised on appeal, but expressly rejected by the appellate court."); Bakala v. Bakala, 352 S.C. 612, 632 , 576 S.E.2d 156, 166 (2003) (holding a family court judge could not overrule the prior unappealed order of another family court judge because it ha

2013Code Ann. § 15-3-530 (1) (2005) (providing that actions for breach of contract must be commenced within three years); Judy v. Martin, 381 S.C. 455, 458 , 674 S.E.2d 151, 153 (2009) ("Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, a party is precluded from relitigating, after an appeal, matters that were either not raised on appeal, but should have been, or raised on appeal, but expressly rejected by the appellate court."); Bakala v. Bakala, 352 S.C. 612, 632 , 576 S.E.2d 156, 166 (2003) (holding a family court judge could not overrule the prior unappealed order of another family court judge because it ha

2022Co. v. Clift, 260 U.S. 316, 319 (1922) ("The prior ruling may have been followed as the law of the case, but there is a difference between such adherence and res []judicata.

2016Co. v. Clift, 260 U.S. 316, 319 , 43 S.Ct. 126 , 67 L.Ed. 283 (1922) ("The prior ruling may have been followed as the law of the case, but there is a difference between such adherence and res adjudi-cata.

2025See Williams, 436 S.C. at 558, 873 S.E.2d at 790 ("An appellate court reviews decision of the family court de novo."); Terry v. Terry, 400 S.C. 453, 456-57 , 734 S.E.2d 646, 648 (2012) ("A temporary order of the family court is without prejudice to the rights of the parties.

2025See Williams, 436 S.C. at 558, 873 S.E.2d at 790 ("An appellate court reviews decision of the family court de novo."); Terry v. Terry, 400 S.C. 453, 456-57 , 734 S.E.2d 646, 648 (2012) ("A temporary order of the family court is without prejudice to the rights of the parties.

2025Ordinarily an interlocutory order which merely decides some point or matter essential to the progress of the cause, collateral to the issues in the case, is not binding as the law of the case, and may be reconsidered and corrected by the court before entering a final order on the merits." (quoting Weil v. Weil, 299 S.C. 84, 89 , 382 S.E.2d 471, 473 (Ct. App. 1989))); Bakala, 352 S.C. at 629 , 576 S.E.2d at 165 ("Objections to personal jurisdiction, unlike subject matter jurisdiction, are waived unless raised."); Hickman, 301 S.C. at 456 , 392 S.E.2d at 482 ("A party cannot use Rule 59(e) to pr

2025Ordinarily an interlocutory order which merely decides some point or matter essential to the progress of the cause, collateral to the issues in the case, is not binding as the law of the case, and may be reconsidered and corrected by the court before entering a final order on the merits." (quoting Weil v. Weil, 299 S.C. 84, 89 , 382 S.E.2d 471, 473 (Ct. App. 1989))); Bakala, 352 S.C. at 629 , 576 S.E.2d at 165 ("Objections to personal jurisdiction, unlike subject matter jurisdiction, are waived unless raised."); Hickman, 301 S.C. at 456 , 392 S.E.2d at 482 ("A party cannot use Rule 59(e) to pr

2024Corp., 343 S.C. 531, 538 , 542 S.E.2d 360, 363 (2001) ("Unless the parties have contracted to the contrary, the FAA applies in federal or state court to any arbitration agreement regarding a transaction that in fact involves interstate commerce, regardless of whether or not the parties contemplated an interstate transaction." (emphasis added) (footnote omitted)).

2024Corp., 343 S.C. 531, 538 , 542 S.E.2d 360, 363 (2001) ("Unless the parties have contracted to the contrary, the FAA applies in federal or state court to any arbitration agreement regarding a transaction that in fact involves interstate commerce, regardless of whether or not the parties contemplated an interstate transaction." (emphasis added) (footnote omitted)).

2024Coastal Conservation League, 363 S.C. at 76 , 610 S.E.2d at 487 ("A ruling not challenged on appeal is the law of the case, regardless of the correctness of the ruling."); Shirley's Iron Works, Inc., 403 S.C. at 573, 743 S.E.2d at 785 ("The doctrine of the law of the case applies to an order or ruling which finally determines a substantial right." (quoting Weil, 299 S.C. at 89 , 382 S.E.2d at 473 )); id. ("This [s]tate has a long-standing rule that one judge of the same court cannot overrule another."); Adeimy v. Dleykan, 116 S.C. 159, 163 , 107 S.E. 35, 36 (1921) (providing that in a claim an

2024Coastal Conservation League, 363 S.C. at 76 , 610 S.E.2d at 487 ("A ruling not challenged on appeal is the law of the case, regardless of the correctness of the ruling."); Shirley's Iron Works, Inc., 403 S.C. at 573, 743 S.E.2d at 785 ("The doctrine of the law of the case applies to an order or ruling which finally determines a substantial right." (quoting Weil, 299 S.C. at 89 , 382 S.E.2d at 473 )); id. ("This [s]tate has a long-standing rule that one judge of the same court cannot overrule another."); Adeimy v. Dleykan, 116 S.C. 159, 163 , 107 S.E. 35, 36 (1921) (providing that in a claim an

2024Coastal Conservation League, 363 S.C. at 76 , 610 S.E.2d at 487 ("A ruling not challenged on appeal is the law of the case, regardless of the correctness of the ruling."); Shirley's Iron Works, Inc., 403 S.C. at 573, 743 S.E.2d at 785 ("The doctrine of the law of the case applies to an order or ruling which finally determines a substantial right." (quoting Weil, 299 S.C. at 89 , 382 S.E.2d at 473 )); id. ("This [s]tate has a long-standing rule that one judge of the same court cannot overrule another."); Adeimy v. Dleykan, 116 S.C. 159, 163 , 107 S.E. 35, 36 (1921) (providing that in a claim an

2024Coastal Conservation League, 363 S.C. at 76 , 610 S.E.2d at 487 ("A ruling not challenged on appeal is the law of the case, regardless of the correctness of the ruling."); Shirley's Iron Works, Inc., 403 S.C. at 573, 743 S.E.2d at 785 ("The doctrine of the law of the case applies to an order or ruling which finally determines a substantial right." (quoting Weil, 299 S.C. at 89 , 382 S.E.2d at 473 )); id. ("This [s]tate has a long-standing rule that one judge of the same court cannot overrule another."); Adeimy v. Dleykan, 116 S.C. 159, 163 , 107 S.E. 35, 36 (1921) (providing that in a claim an

2023See Judy v. Martin, 381 S.C. 455, 458 , 674 S.E.2d 151, 153 (2009) (determining that a party may not seek relief from an order not appealed "because the order has become the law of the case"); In re Morrison, 321 S.C. 370 , 372 n.2, 468 S.E.2d 651 , 652 n.2 (1996) (noting that an unappealed ruling becomes the law of the case and precludes further consideration of the issue on appeal); Bartles v. Livingston, 282 S.C. 448, 461-62 , 319 S.E.2d 707, 715 (Ct. App. 1984) (determining a party was bound in all subsequent proceedings by a foreclosure decree it did not appeal); Atl.

2023See Judy v. Martin, 381 S.C. 455, 458 , 674 S.E.2d 151, 153 (2009) (determining that a party may not seek relief from an order not appealed "because the order has become the law of the case"); In re Morrison, 321 S.C. 370 , 372 n.2, 468 S.E.2d 651 , 652 n.2 (1996) (noting that an unappealed ruling becomes the law of the case and precludes further consideration of the issue on appeal); Bartles v. Livingston, 282 S.C. 448, 461-62 , 319 S.E.2d 707, 715 (Ct. App. 1984) (determining a party was bound in all subsequent proceedings by a foreclosure decree it did not appeal); Atl.

2023See Mathis v. Brown & Brown of S.C., Inc., 389 S.C. 299, 307 , 698 S.E.2d 773, 777 (2010) (explaining that in actions at law tried without a jury, "this [c]ourt's scope of review is limited to determining whether the findings are supported by competent evidence and correcting errors of law"); Rule 54(b), SCRCP (stating that, unless certified as final, a partial summary judgment order "is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims"); Shirley's Iron Works v. City of Union, 403 S.C. 560, 573 , 743 S.E.2d 778, 785 (2013) ("The doctrine of the law of th

2023See Mathis v. Brown & Brown of S.C., Inc., 389 S.C. 299, 307 , 698 S.E.2d 773, 777 (2010) (explaining that in actions at law tried without a jury, "this [c]ourt's scope of review is limited to determining whether the findings are supported by competent evidence and correcting errors of law"); Rule 54(b), SCRCP (stating that, unless certified as final, a partial summary judgment order "is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims"); Shirley's Iron Works v. City of Union, 403 S.C. 560, 573 , 743 S.E.2d 778, 785 (2013) ("The doctrine of the law of th

2023See Mathis v. Brown & Brown of S.C., Inc., 389 S.C. 299, 307 , 698 S.E.2d 773, 777 (2010) (explaining that in actions at law tried without a jury, "this [c]ourt's scope of review is limited to determining whether the findings are supported by competent evidence and correcting errors of law"); Rule 54(b), SCRCP (stating that, unless certified as final, a partial summary judgment order "is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims"); Shirley's Iron Works v. City of Union, 403 S.C. 560, 573 , 743 S.E.2d 778, 785 (2013) ("The doctrine of the law of th

2023See Mathis v. Brown & Brown of S.C., Inc., 389 S.C. 299, 307 , 698 S.E.2d 773, 777 (2010) (explaining that in actions at law tried without a jury, "this [c]ourt's scope of review is limited to determining whether the findings are supported by competent evidence and correcting errors of law"); Rule 54(b), SCRCP (stating that, unless certified as final, a partial summary judgment order "is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims"); Shirley's Iron Works v. City of Union, 403 S.C. 560, 573 , 743 S.E.2d 778, 785 (2013) ("The doctrine of the law of th

2023See Mathis v. Brown & Brown of S.C., Inc., 389 S.C. 299, 307 , 698 S.E.2d 773, 777 (2010) (explaining that in actions at law tried without a jury, "this [c]ourt's scope of review is limited to determining whether the findings are supported by competent evidence and correcting errors of law"); Rule 54(b), SCRCP (stating that, unless certified as final, a partial summary judgment order "is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims"); Shirley's Iron Works v. City of Union, 403 S.C. 560, 573 , 743 S.E.2d 778, 785 (2013) ("The doctrine of the law of th

2023See Mathis v. Brown & Brown of S.C., Inc., 389 S.C. 299, 307 , 698 S.E.2d 773, 777 (2010) (explaining that in actions at law tried without a jury, "this [c]ourt's scope of review is limited to determining whether the findings are supported by competent evidence and correcting errors of law"); Rule 54(b), SCRCP (stating that, unless certified as final, a partial summary judgment order "is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims"); Shirley's Iron Works v. City of Union, 403 S.C. 560, 573 , 743 S.E.2d 778, 785 (2013) ("The doctrine of the law of th

2022See RIM Assocs. v. Blackwell, 359 S.C. 170, 182 , 597 S.E.2d 152, 159 (Ct. App. 2004) ("A case that is dismissed 'with prejudice' indicates an adjudication on the merits and, pursuant to res judicata, prohibits subsequent litigation to the same extent as if the action has been tried to a final adjudication." (emphases added) (quoting Nelson v. QHG of S.C., Inc., 354 S.C. 290, 311 , 580 S.E.2d 171, 182 (Ct. App. 2003), rev'd in part on other grounds, 362 S.C. 421 , 608 S.E.2d 855 (2005)), cert. granted Aug. 25, 2005; Judy v. Martin, 381 S.C. 455, 458 , 674 S.E.2d 151, 153 (2009) ("Under the law

2022See RIM Assocs. v. Blackwell, 359 S.C. 170, 182 , 597 S.E.2d 152, 159 (Ct. App. 2004) ("A case that is dismissed 'with prejudice' indicates an adjudication on the merits and, pursuant to res judicata, prohibits subsequent litigation to the same extent as if the action has been tried to a final adjudication." (emphases added) (quoting Nelson v. QHG of S.C., Inc., 354 S.C. 290, 311 , 580 S.E.2d 171, 182 (Ct. App. 2003), rev'd in part on other grounds, 362 S.C. 421 , 608 S.E.2d 855 (2005)), cert. granted Aug. 25, 2005; Judy v. Martin, 381 S.C. 455, 458 , 674 S.E.2d 151, 153 (2009) ("Under the law

2022See RIM Assocs. v. Blackwell, 359 S.C. 170, 182 , 597 S.E.2d 152, 159 (Ct. App. 2004) ("A case that is dismissed 'with prejudice' indicates an adjudication on the merits and, pursuant to res judicata, prohibits subsequent litigation to the same extent as if the action has been tried to a final adjudication." (emphases added) (quoting Nelson v. QHG of S.C., Inc., 354 S.C. 290, 311 , 580 S.E.2d 171, 182 (Ct. App. 2003), rev'd in part on other grounds, 362 S.C. 421 , 608 S.E.2d 855 (2005)), cert. granted Aug. 25, 2005; Judy v. Martin, 381 S.C. 455, 458 , 674 S.E.2d 151, 153 (2009) ("Under the law

2022See RIM Assocs. v. Blackwell, 359 S.C. 170, 182 , 597 S.E.2d 152, 159 (Ct. App. 2004) ("A case that is dismissed 'with prejudice' indicates an adjudication on the merits and, pursuant to res judicata, prohibits subsequent litigation to the same extent as if the action has been tried to a final adjudication." (emphases added) (quoting Nelson v. QHG of S.C., Inc., 354 S.C. 290, 311 , 580 S.E.2d 171, 182 (Ct. App. 2003), rev'd in part on other grounds, 362 S.C. 421 , 608 S.E.2d 855 (2005)), cert. granted Aug. 25, 2005; Judy v. Martin, 381 S.C. 455, 458 , 674 S.E.2d 151, 153 (2009) ("Under the law

2022See RIM Assocs. v. Blackwell, 359 S.C. 170, 182 , 597 S.E.2d 152, 159 (Ct. App. 2004) ("A case that is dismissed 'with prejudice' indicates an adjudication on the merits and, pursuant to res judicata, prohibits subsequent litigation to the same extent as if the action has been tried to a final adjudication." (emphases added) (quoting Nelson v. QHG of S.C., Inc., 354 S.C. 290, 311 , 580 S.E.2d 171, 182 (Ct. App. 2003), rev'd in part on other grounds, 362 S.C. 421 , 608 S.E.2d 855 (2005)), cert. granted Aug. 25, 2005; Judy v. Martin, 381 S.C. 455, 458 , 674 S.E.2d 151, 153 (2009) ("Under the law

2022See RIM Assocs. v. Blackwell, 359 S.C. 170, 182 , 597 S.E.2d 152, 159 (Ct. App. 2004) ("A case that is dismissed 'with prejudice' indicates an adjudication on the merits and, pursuant to res judicata, prohibits subsequent litigation to the same extent as if the action has been tried to a final adjudication." (emphases added) (quoting Nelson v. QHG of S.C., Inc., 354 S.C. 290, 311 , 580 S.E.2d 171, 182 (Ct. App. 2003), rev'd in part on other grounds, 362 S.C. 421 , 608 S.E.2d 855 (2005)), cert. granted Aug. 25, 2005; Judy v. Martin, 381 S.C. 455, 458 , 674 S.E.2d 151, 153 (2009) ("Under the law