Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Donohue v. City of North Augusta

Supreme Court of South Carolina

June 17, 2015

Stephen P. Donohue, Appellant,
v.
City of North Augusta, the Mayor and City Council of North Augusta, Respondents

Heard May 5, 2015.

Appeal from Aiken County. J. Ernest Kinard, Jr., Circuit Court Judge. Appellate Case No. 2014-002235.

AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART.

James D. Mosteller, III, of Mosteller Law Firm, LLC, of Barnwell, for Appellant.

Belton Townsend Zeigler, Gary Tusten Pope, Jr., and Charles Douglas Rhodes, III, all of Pope Zeigler, LLC, of Columbia, and Kelly F. Zier, of Zier Law Firm, of North Augusta, for Respondents.

JUSTICE PLEICONES. TOAL, C.J., BEATTY, KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ., concur.

OPINION

[412 S.C. 527] PLEICONES, JUSTICE:

This is an appeal from a circuit court order upholding the validity of an ordinance amending respondent City of North Augusta's (City's) 1996 Tax Increment Financing District (TIF) ordinance and finding that respondents Mayor and City Council[1] did not violate the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).[2] We affirm the order to the extent it upholds the ordinance, but reverse the finding that respondents did not violate the FOIA, and remand that issue with instructions.

[412 S.C. 528]FACTS

Appellant is a resident of North Augusta. He brought this action to challenge the validity of Ord. No. 2013-19 which amended Ord. No. 96-10. The 1996 ordinance created a TIF[3] within the Redevelopment District[4] created in 1991 by respondents' Resolution 91-06. He also challenged respondents' compliance with the Freedom of Information

Page 141

Act[5] (FOIA) between January 2013 and September 2013.

ISSUES

1) Was Ord. No. 2013-19 adopted in compliance with S.C. Code Ann. § 31-6-80(F)(2) (Supp. 2014)?
2) Did respondents violate the requirement in S.C. Code Ann. ยง 30-4-70 (2007) that they announce the specific purpose ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.