Sloan v. Rex

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR. THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court Edward D. Sloan, Jr., Appellant, v. James H. Rex, Superintendent of Education,[1] Respondent. Appeal From Richland County James R. Barber, Circuit Court Judge Memorandum Opinion No. 2008-MO-003 Heard December 5, 2007 – Filed January 14, 2008 AFFIRMED Jennifer J. Miller and James G. Carpenter, both of The Carpenter Law Firm, of Greenville, for Appellant. Shelly Bezanson Kelly, of Columbia, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: Keyserling v. Beasley, 322 S.C. 83, 470 S.E.2d 100 (1996) (Article III, § 17 does not preclude the legislature from dealing with several branches of one general subject in a single act); Sloan v. Wilkins, 362 S.C. 430, 608 S.E.2d 579 (2005) (Article III, § 17 is to be liberally construed to uphold an Act if practicable); and Hercules, Inc. v. S.C. Tax Comm’n, 274 S.C. 137, 141-142, 262 S.E.2d 45, 47-48 (1980) (Article III, § 17 requires “the topics in the body of the act [be] kindred in nature and hav[e] a legitimate and natural association with the subject of the title,” and that the title conveys “reasonable notice of the subject matter to the legislature and the public.”) AFFIRMED. TOAL, C.J., MOORE, WALLER, PLEICONES and BEATTY, JJ., concur. [1] Pursuant to Rule 236(d), SCACR, we substitute the current Superintendent of Education, James H. Rex, for the original named party, Inez M. Tenenabaum, who ceased to hold office during the pendency of this appeal.