# State v. Oxner

> Supreme Court of South Carolina · January 24, 2011 · 391 S.C. 132

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9765923

## Case

- **Full name:** The STATE, Appellant, v. Harry OXNER, Respondent
- **Court:** Supreme Court of South Carolina
- **Decided:** January 24, 2011
- **Citations:** 391 S.C. 132; 705 S.E.2d 51; 2011 S.C. LEXIS 20
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Toal
- **Judges:** Pleicones, Kittredge, Hearn, Toal, Beatty
- **Cited by:** 10 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/9765923

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding an argument relating to subject matter jurisdiction unpreserved because the appellant failed to file a Rule 59(e) motion challenging the circuit court's sua sponte jurisdictional ruling

## Opinion text

Chief Justice TOAL.
I respectfully dissent. To my mind, issue preservation should be no bar to the judge’s erroneous ruling on subject matter jurisdiction. Our case law is clear that a judge’s erroneous assumption of jurisdiction, be it an explicit finding of jurisdiction or assumed jurisdiction, may be raised at any time on appeal and addressed de novo by the appellate court without regard to our customary issue preservation requirements. See In re November I, 2008 Bluffton Town Council Election, 385 S.C. 632 , 637, 686 S.E.2d 683, 686 (2009) (“Issues related to subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time.”); Arnal v. Fraser, 371 S.C. 512 , 517 n. 2, 641 S.E.2d 419, 421, n. 2 (2007); Carter v. State, 329 S.C. 355, 362 , 495 S.E.2d 773, 777 (1998). I see no reason why a judge’s erroneous ruling that she lacks subject matter jurisdiction should be treated differently from an erroneous ruling that she has subject matter jurisdiction. Here, the circuit court clearly had subject matter jurisdiction over this matter, and I *136 would remand the case for the circuit court to exercise that jurisdiction.
BEATTY, J., concurs.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9765923. Public record. Not legal advice.