Case ID: sc_322/html/0232-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Waller, Justice:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

24427
    FOOD MART, Petitioner v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL, Respondent.
    (471 S.E. (2d) 688)
    Supreme Court
    
      
      Bobby J. Pippin, Columbia, pro se Petitioner. .
    
    
      Samuel L. Finkles, III, Walton J. McLeod, III, and F. Carlisle Roberts, Jr., South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, Columbia, for Respondent.
    
    Heard Apr. 2, 1996.
    Decided May 20, 1996;
    Reh. Den. June 20, 1996.
   ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS

Waller, Justice:

This court granted certiorari to review the Court of Appeals’ decision dismissing petitioner Food Mart’s appeal on justiciability grounds. Food Mart v. South Carolina Dept. of Health and Environmental Control, 318 S.C. 384, 458 S.E. (2d) 47 (Ct. App. 1995). We affirm the Court of Appeals insofar as it found petitioner’s claim was moot. However, we vacate the opinion to the extent it addresses whether petitioner was required to exhaust its administrative remedies before bringing the present declaratory judgment action. This issue is procedurally barred from any appellate review because it was neither raised by the parties nor ruled on by the trial court below. Matters now argued to or ruled on by the trial court are not preserved for review. Grant v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 319 S.C. 348, 461 S.E. (2d) 388 (1995); Vaught v. Waites, 300 S.C. 201, 387 S.E. (2d) 91 (Ct. App. 1989) (per curiam).

Affirmed in part and vacated in part.

Finney, C.J., and Toal, Moore and Burnett, JJ., concur. 
      
       We decline to address the constitutional issues raised to and ruled on by the trial court. In light of this decision, any discussion of the merits of petitioner’s claim would be purely academic. Furthermore, we granted certiorari specifically only to consider whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding mootness and failure to exhaust administrative remedies.