City of Columbia v. Jackson

THIS OPINION HAS NO
PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY
PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

City of Columbia, Respondent,

v.

Mamie Jackson,Appellant.

Appeal From Richland County

 Reginald I. Lloyd, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-192

Submitted March 3, 2008 – Filed March 18,
2008

AFFIRMED

Mamie L. Jackson, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Peter M. Balthazor, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Mamie
Jackson appeals the circuit court’s order granting the City of Columbia injunctive relief.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220, SCACR, and the following authorities:  Issue I:  S.C. Const. Art. V, § 11 (Supp. 2007) (“The Circuit
Court shall be a general trial court with original jurisdiction in civil and
criminal cases, except those cases in which exclusive jurisdiction shall be
given to inferior courts, and shall have such appellate jurisdiction as
provided by law.”); S.C. Code Ann. § 14-25-45 (Supp. 2007) (“Each municipal
court shall have jurisdiction to try all cases arising under the ordinances of
the municipality for which established.”); S.C. Code Ann. § 6-29-950 (2004)
(“The governing body of any county or municipality whose zoning ordinances are
so violated may apply to any court of competent jurisdiction for injunctive and
such other relief as the court may deem proper.”); City of Columbia v.
Pic-A-Flick Video, Inc., 340 S.C. 278, 282, 531 S.E.2d 518, 521 (2000)
(stating a municipal authority may seek injunctive relief to abate zoning
violation); Issue II.:  Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71,
76, 497 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1998) (“It is axiomatic that an issue cannot be raised
for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by
the trial judge to be preserved for appellate review.”); Issue
III.:  In re McCracken, 346 S.C. 87, 92, 551 S.E.2d 235, 238 (2001)
(stating constitutional claim must be raised and ruled upon to be preserved for
appellate review).

AFFIRMED.

HUFF,
KITTREDGE, and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur. 

[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to
Rule 215, SCACR.