Archie Patterson v. SCDEW
Case Details
- Status
- Published
- Procedural Posture
- appeal from circuit court judgment; South Carolina Court of Appeals reversed
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Outcome
South Carolina Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court's judgment in favor of plaintiffs Patterson and Bollerman against the Department of Employment and Workforce, holding that the circuit court erred in certifying a class, declaring that DEW was required to promulgate regulations for online work search requirements, and concluding that plaintiffs were not required to exhaust administrative remedies.
Excerpt
In this declaratory judgment action, the South Carolina Department of Employment and Workforce (DEW) appeals the circuit court's orders granting judgment in favor of named plaintiffs Archie Patterson and Tammie Bollerman (collectively, Claimants), arguing the circuit court erred by (1) certifying a class, and in the alternative, failing to require a claims made process, (2) declaring DEW was required to promulgate regulations implementing its online work search requirement, and (3) concluding Claimants were not required to exhaust their administrative remedies prior to bringing this action. We reverse.
Similar Rulings
<bold>1. Appeal and Error — standard of review —</bold><bold>administrative decision — de novo</bold> A <italic>de novo</italic> standard of review applied to plaintiffs argument on appeal that defendant Board of Adjustment's (BOA) interpretation of the term "work" as used in a sign permit issued to plaintiff constituted an error of law. The BOA's interpretation was not entitled to deference. <bold>2. Zoning — sign permit — interpretation of</bold><bold>ordinance — unduly restrictive</bold> The Board of Adjustment (BOA) erred in prohibiting plaintiff from relocating a sign as necessary to accommodate a state highway project based on the BOA's determination that a sign permit issued to plaintiff had expired. The BOA's interpretation of the term "work" as used in the sign permit to mean only visible activities related to construction was too narrow and unduly restrictive. Zoning ordinances are strictly construed in favor of the free use of real property and plaintiffs actions were sufficient to constitute "work."
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.