SC Court of Appeals: State v. Shellie L. Davis South Carolina Appeal

• The South Carolina Court of Appeals issued a ruling in the case of The State v. Shellie Lavette Davis, identified as Appellate Case No. 2018-000366.
• Shellie Lavette Davis was the appellant, challenging a decision from Lexington County, which was presided over by Circuit Court Judge Thomas A. Russo.
• The opinion explicitly states it holds no precedential value and should not be cited as such in any proceeding.
• Citation of this non-precedential opinion is only permissible under the specific, limited conditions provided by Rule 268(d)(2), SCACR.

A crucial aspect of the South Carolina Court of Appeals' ruling in `State v. Shellie Lavette Davis` is its explicit designation as having no precedential value.

The South Carolina Court of Appeals recently issued a ruling in the matter of The State v. Shellie Lavette Davis, identified by Appellate Case No. 2018-000366. This appellate proceeding involved Shellie Lavette Davis as the appellant, challenging a prior decision, with The State of South Carolina acting as the respondent in the case.

The appellate court's review pertains to a judgment originating from Lexington County. This specific case, `State v. Shellie L. Davis South Carolina`, represents a stage in the legal process where a higher court examines the proceedings and outcome of a lower court's determination.

Such appellate actions are a fundamental component of the judicial system, allowing parties to seek a review of potential errors in trial court decisions. The identification of parties as appellant and respondent clearly delineates their roles in the appeal, with the appellant seeking to overturn or modify a prior ruling and the respondent defending it.

The appeal heard by the South Carolina Court of Appeals stemmed directly from a decision rendered in Lexington County. The initial proceedings were presided over by Circuit Court Judge Thomas A. Russo, whose judgment formed the basis for the subsequent appellate review.

Appellate Case No. 2018-000366 serves as the unique identifier for this particular legal challenge within the South Carolina judicial system. This number ensures that the specific record and proceedings related to Shellie Lavette Davis's appeal can be accurately tracked and referenced throughout the appellate process.

The involvement of a circuit court judge from Lexington County underscores the hierarchical structure of the state's judiciary, where decisions made at the circuit court level are subject to scrutiny by the state's intermediate appellate court. This process is designed to ensure the consistent application of law and to rectify any errors that may have occurred during the initial trial.

A crucial aspect of the South Carolina Court of Appeals' ruling in `State v. Shellie Lavette Davis` is its explicit designation as having no precedential value. This means the opinion cannot be cited or relied upon as a binding example for future legal proceedings, nor does it establish new legal principles or interpretations that other courts must follow.

Lawyers and compliance officers should particularly note that this specific opinion, Appellate Case No. 2018-000366, is not to be used to support legal arguments or establish new legal principles in subsequent cases. Its application is strictly limited to the parties and facts directly involved in this particular appeal, reflecting a common practice for certain types of appellate decisions that do not contribute to the body of binding case law.

The prohibition on citing this opinion as precedent is subject to a very narrow exception, as outlined by Rule 268(d)(2) of the South Carolina Appellate Court Rules (SCACR). This rule specifies the limited circumstances under which a non-precedential opinion may be referenced, reinforcing the general understanding that such rulings are not intended to shape the broader legal landscape. Therefore, while the case resolves the dispute between The State and Shellie Lavette Davis, its impact on the wider legal community is intentionally restricted.

Lawyers and compliance officers should note that this specific opinion has no precedential value and cannot be cited as precedent in any proceeding, except under the limited circumstances provided by Rule 268(d)(2), SCACR. This means it cannot be used to support legal arguments or establish new legal principles.

Source: Original reporting via court document