Court Opinion

ID: 9780798
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 02:55:02.037962+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:34:13.828787
License: Public Domain

*175Justice PLEICONES.
I respectfully dissent because, as I stated the first time this case came before the Court, it is my opinion that the SPPA does not apply here. Moreover, the majority acknowledges that the issue of maintaining the payment bond was not before the Court in the first appeal, but concludes that the inclusion of that term in a holding renders it the law of the case. I disagree. E.g., Berberich v. Jack, 392 S.C. 278, 709 S.E.2d 607 (2011) (appellate court comments on unpreserved issue must be viewed as dicta). I simply point out that the law of the case doctrine does not apply to mere dicta. E.g., White’s Mill Colony Inc. v. Williams, 363 S.C. 117, 609 S.E.2d 811 (Ct.App.2005).
I would reverse.