Town of Sullivan's Island v. Michael Murray
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court Town of Sullivan's Island, Petitioner, v. Michael Murray, Respondent. Appellate Case No. 2021-001260 ______________ ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS ______________ Appeal from Charleston County Kristi Lea Harrington, Circuit Court Judge ______________ Opinion No. 28153 Submitted April 3, 2023 – Filed April 26, 2023 ______________ AFFIRMED IN RESULT ______________ John Joseph Dodds, III, of The Law Firm of Cisa & Dodds, LLP, of Mt. Pleasant; and George Trenholm Walker and John Phillips Linton, Jr., of Walker Gressette Freeman & Linton, LLC, of Charleston, all for Petitioner. Mary Duncan Shahid, of Nexsen Pruet, LLC, and Stephen Peterson Groves, Sr., of Butler Snow, LLP, both of Charleston, for Respondent. ______________ 18 PER CURIAM: Respondent was convicted in a municipal court bench trial of violating Sullivan's Island Town Code sections 21-75 and 5-10 (the ordinances). The municipal court imposed a $1040 fine as punishment. On direct appeal, the circuit court affirmed the conviction. The court of appeals reversed, holding the ordinances were unconstitutionally vague and failed to provide Respondent with fair notice his actions would result in a criminal violation. In addition, the court held the Town of Sullivan's Island failed to present evidence the dock built by Respondent interfered with navigation or extended into the channel in violation of the ordinance. Town of Sullivan's Island v. Murray, 435 S.C. 22, 864 S.E.2d 909 (Ct. App. 2021). Because we agree with the court of appeals that there was no evidence Respondent violated any provision of the ordinance, we grant the petition for a writ of certiorari to the court of appeals, dispense with briefing, and affirm the result of the court of appeals' opinion reversing Respondent's conviction. AFFIRMED IN RESULT. BEATTY, C.J., KITTREDGE, FEW, JAMES and HILL, JJ., concur. 19
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
