# Chavous v. Brown

> Supreme Court of South Carolina · August 12, 1991 · 305 S.C. 387

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1409195

## Case

- **Full name:** Alden CHAVOUS, Jr., Individually and as Guardian Ad Litem for Alden Chavous, III, a Minor, Respondent v. Herman Wayne BROWN and Joanne Brown, Petitioners
- **Court:** Supreme Court of South Carolina
- **Decided:** August 12, 1991
- **Citations:** 305 S.C. 387; 409 S.E.2d 356; 1991 S.C. LEXIS 173
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Per Curiam
- **Cited by:** 6 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1409195

## Opinion text

Per Curiam:
This case was originally before us on a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals’ decision reported at 299 S.C. 398 , 385 S.E. (2d) 206 (Ct. App. 1989). We reversed the Court of Appeals’ holding that
Batson v. Kentucky,
476 U.S. 79 , 106 S. Ct. 1712 , 90 L. Ed. (2d) 69 (1986), applies in a civil action 396 S.E. (2d) 98 . Op. No. 23254 (S.C. S. Ct. filed Aug. 6,1990). The United States Supreme Court subsequently issued its opinion in
Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co.,.
500 U.S. —, 111 S. Ct. 2077 , 114 L. Ed. (2d) 660 (1991). On writ of certiorari — U.S. —, 111 S. Ct. 2791 , 115 L. Ed. (2d) 966, it remanded this case for reconsideration in light of its holding in
Edmonson
that the exercise of race-motivated peremptory strikes by a private civil litigant violates
Batson .
Acceding to the high court’s decision in
Edmonson ,
we now consider the only issue remaining in this case: whether the Court of Appeals’ holding that the race-neutral explanations for strikes exercised by petitioners against two female black jurors violated
Batson
because they were merely pretextual.
See State v. Oglesby,
298 S.C. 279 , 379 S.E. (2d) 891 (1989). We concur in the Court of Appeals’ holding on this issue. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals’ decision is now
Affirmed.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1409195. Public record. Not legal advice.