# Law v. South Carolina Department of Corrections > Supreme Court of South Carolina · April 10, 2006 · 368 S.C. 424 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9567618 ## Case - **Full name:** Anthony LAW, Vondeste G. Mole, Mark Holmes, Arthur A. Vaughan, Harry Jenkins, and Kenneth Green, Appellants, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent - **Court:** Supreme Court of South Carolina - **Decided:** April 10, 2006 - **Citations:** 368 S.C. 424; 629 S.E.2d 642; 2006 S.C. LEXIS 122 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Pleicones - **Judges:** Burnett, Toal, Moore, Davis, Pleicones - **Cited by:** 144 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/9567618 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - holding that to maintain an action for malicious prosecution, a plaintiff must establish "(1) the institution or continuation of original judicial proceedings; (2) by or at the instance of the defendant; (3) termination of such proceedings in plaintiff's favor; (4) malice in i… - stating that while futility is a general exception to the requirement of exhaustion of administrative remedies, it must be demonstrated by a showing comparable to the administrative agency taking "a hard and fast position that makes an adverse ruling a certainty." (quoting The… - stating that whether to require the plaintiff to exhaust administrative remedies is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial judge and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion (citing Andrews Bearing Corp., 261 S.C. at 536 , 201 S.E.2d at 243 ; Tr… - explaining that an appellate court will reverse the circuit court’s ruling on a directed verdict motion only “when there is no evidence to support the ruling or where the ruling is controlled by an error of law.” - stating that in ruling on a directed verdict motion, the trial court is required to view the evidence and the inferences which reasonably can be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the opposing party ## Opinion text Justice PLEICONES concurring in part and dissenting in part: I concur in part and dissent in part. I agree with the majority opinion that the grant of summary judgment on the malicious-prosecution claims and the directed verdict on the wrongful-termination claims should be affirmed. I respectfully dissent from the affirmance of JNOV on the false-imprisonment claims, because the evidence in the record yields at least one inference that supports the jury’s verdict. See Strange v. S.C. Dep’t of Highways and Pub. Transp., 314 S.C. 427, 429-30 , 445 S.E.2d 439, 440 (1994) (providing the standard for ruling on motions for JNOV). The lawful-authority determination here turns on whether the insufficient warrant affidavits were sufficiently supplemented by sworn oral testimony pursuant to State v. Crane, 296 S.C. 336, 338 , 372 S.E.2d 587, 588 (1988). If so, then the warrants were valid and lawful authority to arrest was present. If not, then the warrants were not issued pursuant to *444 legal process, and lawful authority to arrest was absent. The relevant evidence is the trial testimony of the magistrate and the trial testimony of Investigator Nettles. As stated in the majority opinion, “the magistrate, who issued the arrest warrants, testified he routinely conducted an oral report, under oath, in addition to the affidavits presented to him before making a probable cause determination. Nettles testified she and Baker gave sworn, oral testimony to the magistrate, which included examples of corroboration of Harrison’s allegations.” The majority holds that this trial testimony proves the warrant affidavits were orally supplemented. In so holding, the majority necessarily passes on the credibility of witness. I disagree with the holding because it was within the jury’s province to believe or disbelieve this trial testimony. See Curcio v. Caterpillar, Inc., 355 S.C. 316 , 585 S.E.2d 272 (2003) (holding that “[w]hen considering a JNOV, neither an appellate court, nor the trial court has authority to decide credibility issues or to resolve conflicts in the testimony or the evidence”) (internal quotation omitted). In my opinion, the evidence yields at least one reasonable inference that the warrant affidavits were not orally supplemented. That inference supports a conclusion that the warrants were not issued pursuant to legal process and that lawful authority was therefore absent. Consequently, I would reverse the grant of JNOV and reinstate the jury’s verdict on Appellants’ false-imprisonment claims. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9567618. Public record. Not legal advice.