Filed: Jul. 01, 2015
Latest Update: Jul. 01, 2015
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 . Reversed and remanded pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Dumas v. InfoSafe Corp., 320 S.C. 188, 192, 463 S.E.2d 641 , 643 (Ct. App. 1995) ("An action to pierce the corporate veil is one in equity."); Dixon v. Dixon, 362 S.C. 388 , 400, 608 S.E.2d 849 , 855 (2005) ("This [c]ourt has held that the
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 . Reversed and remanded pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Dumas v. InfoSafe Corp., 320 S.C. 188, 192, 463 S.E.2d 641 , 643 (Ct. App. 1995) ("An action to pierce the corporate veil is one in equity."); Dixon v. Dixon, 362 S.C. 388 , 400, 608 S.E.2d 849 , 855 (2005) ("This [c]ourt has held that the ..
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.
Reversed and remanded pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Dumas v. InfoSafe Corp., 320 S.C. 188, 192, 463 S.E.2d 641, 643 (Ct. App. 1995) ("An action to pierce the corporate veil is one in equity."); Dixon v. Dixon, 362 S.C. 388, 400, 608 S.E.2d 849, 855 (2005) ("This [c]ourt has held that the statute of limitations does not apply to actions in equity.").1
REVERSED AND REMANDED.2
SHORT, LOCKEMY, and McDONALD, JJ., concur.
