Bindinglaw

SC · rules

SCRCP 72

Judgments and Orders Subject to Appeal

activein force · 2026-10-02 – presentcompiled-edition

Appeal may be taken, as provided by law, from any final judgment or appealable order.

Note:

This Rule 72 parallels, in part, S.C. Code § 14-3-330, but is designed to reduce appeals

from interlocutory or intermediate orders in an action. It accords with the modern

decisions of the Supreme Court narrowing "dilatory appeals" from such interlocutory

orders as grant or deny motions addressed to the pleadings, motions at trial, and the

like. All such questions are left to the appeal from final judgment or order of dismissal.

There is no conflict with the Supreme Court jurisdictional statutes and all statutory

rights to appeal are preserved specifically by subdivision (6).

Note to 1989 Amendment:

The jurisdiction of all courts is determined by the Constitution, the jurisdictional

statutes, and the case law interpreting those provisions. Rule 72 as originally written

created confusion and unintended arguments that the civil rules changed the scope of

appeal. Rule 72 was not intended to alter, amend or supercede previously existing law

concerning appeals. The amendment rephrases Rule 72 as a general statement that

appeals are as provided by law, and is consistent with Rule 73 which states that the

procedure on appeal is governed by the Rules of the Supreme Court.

Article V, § 5, of the Constitution sets forth the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

Some of the relevant statutes are § 14-3-320 (equitable matters); § 14-3-330 (matters

of law); § 17-17-140 (habeas corpus). Some of the important cases are: North Carolina

Federal Savings and Loan Ass'n v. Twin States Dev. Corp., 289 S.C. 480, 347 S.E.2d 97

(1986) (§ 14-3-330 controls appeals not Rule 72); Coleman v. Keels, 30 S.C. 614, 9 S.E.

270 (1889) (certiorari); Ex parte Mackey, 15 S.C. 322 (1880) (mandamus); Southern

Railway Co. v. Coltex, 285 S.C. 213, 329 S.E.2d 736 (1985) (new trial because of error of

law); Simms v. Phillips, 46 S.C. 149, 24 S.E. 87 (1896) (subject matter jurisdiction); Nat.

Exchange Bank v. Stelling, 32 S.C. 102, 10 S.E. 766 (1890) (personal jurisdiction); Godley

v. Uniroyal, Inc., 278 S.C. 571, 300 S.E.2d 78 (1983) (venue not immediately

appealable).

Provenance

Source
www.sccourts.org
Retrieved
2026-10-02
Edition
supplied-sc-01-print-version-2026-10-02
Content hash
6a6ae2a7938e0ca037cb3512daa3c1b1878831968e440a89efd647434120caa8
View the official source →

The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.

Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.

Coverage · API docs

Bindinglaw

Point-in-time US law with the receipt attached. Source URL, retrieval time, content hash, and validity dates on every answer.

curl api.binding.law/v1/law/coverage

© 2026 binding.law · a Jubal, Inc. productAttorneys and firms never pay. Ever.