City of Columbia v. Jackson

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 Court of Appeals City of Columbia, Respondent, v. Mamie Jackson,Appellant. Appeal From Richland County Reginald I. Lloyd, Circuit Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-192 Submitted March 3, 2008 – Filed March 18, 2008 AFFIRMED Mamie L. Jackson, of Columbia, for Appellant. Peter M. Balthazor, of Columbia, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Mamie Jackson appeals the circuit court’s order granting the City of Columbia injunctive relief. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220, SCACR, and the following authorities: Issue I: S.C. Const. Art. V, § 11 (Supp. 2007) (“The Circuit Court shall be a general trial court with original jurisdiction in civil and criminal cases, except those cases in which exclusive jurisdiction shall be given to inferior courts, and shall have such appellate jurisdiction as provided by law.”); S.C. Code Ann. § 14-25-45 (Supp. 2007) (“Each municipal court shall have jurisdiction to try all cases arising under the ordinances of the municipality for which established.”); S.C. Code Ann. § 6-29-950 (2004) (“The governing body of any county or municipality whose zoning ordinances are so violated may apply to any court of competent jurisdiction for injunctive and such other relief as the court may deem proper.”); City of Columbia v. Pic-A-Flick Video, Inc., 340 S.C. 278, 282, 531 S.E.2d 518, 521 (2000) (stating a municipal authority may seek injunctive relief to abate zoning violation); Issue II.: Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76, 497 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1998) (“It is axiomatic that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge to be preserved for appellate review.”); Issue III.: In re McCracken, 346 S.C. 87, 92, 551 S.E.2d 235, 238 (2001) (stating constitutional claim must be raised and ruled upon to be preserved for appellate review). AFFIRMED. HUFF, KITTREDGE, and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur. [1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.