Raymond Johnson v. Cale Yarborough Honda Mazda

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), SCACR. THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals Raymond Johnson, Appellant, v. Cale Yarborough Honda Mazda, Employer, and SC Automobile Dealers Assoc./The Randolph Hope Co., Carrier, Respondents. Appeal From Florence County Thomas A. Russo, Circuit Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-109 Submitted February 1, 2010 – Filed February 8, 2010 APPEAL DISMISSED Raymond Johnson, pro se, of Florence, for Appellant. Louise Elaine Mozingo, of Camden, for Respondents. PER CURIAM: In this workers' compensation case, Raymond Johnson appeals the circuit court's order reversing the decision of the Appellate Panel of the Workers' Compensation Commission in part. We dismiss this appeal[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: Curtis v. State, 345 S.C. 557, 567, 549 S.E.2d 591, 596 (2001) ("An appellate court will not pass on moot and academic questions or make an adjudication where there remains no actual controversy."); Byrd v. Irmo High Sch., 321 S.C. 426, 431, 468 S.E.2d 861, 864 (1996) (quoting Mathis v. S.C. State Highway Dep't, 260 S.C. 344, 346, 195 S.E.2d 713, 715 (1973)) ("Mootness has been defined as follows: 'A case becomes moot when judgment, if rendered, will have no practical legal effect upon existing controversy. This is true when some event occurs making it impossible for the reviewing Court to grant effectual relief.'"); Gainey v. Gainey, 279 S.C. 68, 69, 301 S.E.2d 763, 764 (1983) ("This Court will not issue advisory opinions on questions for which no meaningful relief can be granted."). APPEAL DISMISSED. HUFF, THOMAS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur. [1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.