BERRY v. STOKES IMPORT COLLISION CENTER, 2013-UP-007. (2013)
Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
Number: inscco20130109613
Visitors: 46
Filed: Jan. 09, 2013
Latest Update: Jan. 09, 2013
Summary: THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCARC. PER CURIAM. Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: 1. As to Berry's argument concerning the ineffectiveness of the court provided interpreter during trial: Kleckley v. Nw. Nat'l Cas. Co., 338 S.C. 131 , 138, 526 S.E.2d 218 , 221 (2000) (noting an issue must be raised to and ruled upon by both the trial cour
Summary: THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCARC. PER CURIAM. Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: 1. As to Berry's argument concerning the ineffectiveness of the court provided interpreter during trial: Kleckley v. Nw. Nat'l Cas. Co., 338 S.C. 131 , 138, 526 S.E.2d 218 , 221 (2000) (noting an issue must be raised to and ruled upon by both the trial court..
More
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCARC.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:
1. As to Berry's argument concerning the ineffectiveness of the court provided interpreter during trial: Kleckley v. Nw. Nat'l Cas. Co., 338 S.C. 131, 138, 526 S.E.2d 218, 221 (2000) (noting an issue must be raised to and ruled upon by both the trial court and an intermediate appellate court to be properly preserved for review).
2. As to Berry's argument concerning the circuit court's failure to provide her an interpreter during her appeal: Herron v. Century BMW, 395 S.C. 461, 465, 719 S.E.2d 640, 642 (2011) (noting an issue that is raised for the first time on appeal is not preserved for appellate review).
AFFIRMED.1
FEW, C.J., and WILLIAMS and PIEPER, JJ., concur.
FootNotes
1. We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
Source: Leagle
