BLACK v. ROCHE BIOMEDICAL LABORATORIES

No. 2048.

433 S.E.2d 21 (1993)

Billy Fred BLACK and Vali Dressler Black, Respondents, v. ROCHE BIOMEDICAL LABORATORIES, A DIVISION OF HOFFMAN-La-ROCHE, INC., and Peter Frank, D.O., Defendants, of whom Peter Frank, D.O., is Appellant. and Billy Fred BLACK, as Guardian ad Litem for William James Black, a Minor under the age of Fourteen (14) years, Respondent, v. ROCHE BIOMEDICAL LABORATRIES, A DIVISION OF HOFFMAN-La-ROCHE, INC., and Peter Frank, D.O., Defendants, of whom Peter Frank, D.O. is, Appellant. Appeal of Peter FRANK, D.O.

Court of Appeals of South Carolina.

Decided July 6, 1993.

Rehearing Denied August 5, 1993.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

J. Rutledge Young, Jr., and Stephen P. Groves, both of Young, Clement, Rivers & Tisdale, Charleston, for appellant.

Desa A. Ballard, of Ness, Motley, Loadholt, Richardson & Poole, Barnwell, for respondents.


CURETON, Judge:

In this medical malpractice action, the jury returned a verdict for appellant Peter Frank, D.O.1 (Frank). Frank moved for an award of costs under the applicable statutes and Rules 54(d) and 68 of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedures. The trial judge granted a small portion of the requested costs. Frank appeals. We affirm.

The issues on appeal are whether (1) the trial court should have awarded costs and...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases