McCory v. Postlewait
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR. THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals Travis J. McCory and Alicia S. McCory, Respondents, v. Charleston County School District Board of Trustees, Dr. Gerrita Postlewait, in her capacity as Superintendent of Charleston County School District, and Kim Jackson, in her capacity as Principal of Mt. Pleasant Academy, Appellants. Appellate Case No. 2018-001784 Appeal From Charleston County Jennifer B. McCoy, Circuit Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2021-UP-224 Submitted April 1, 2021 – Filed June 16, 2021 DISMISSED Dwayne Traynor Mazyck, John Marshall Reagle, and Thomas Kennedy Barlow, all of Halligan Mahoney & Williams, of Columbia, for Appellants. Randolph W. Cooper, of Daniel Island, for Respondents. PER CURIAM: In this civil matter, Alicia and Travis McCory (Parents) brought a declaratory judgment action against the Charleston County School District Board of Trustees (the Board) to determine their child's (Daughter's) right to attend a particular school within the Charleston County school district (the District). The circuit court granted declaratory relief to Parents and ordered Daughter's immediate entry to Mt. Pleasant Academy (MPA). The Board now appeals the circuit court's order. "Before any action can be maintained, there must exist a justiciable controversy." Byrd v. Irmo High Sch., 321 S.C. 426, 430, 468 S.E.2d 861, 864 (1996). "A case becomes moot when judgment, if rendered, will have no practical legal effect upon [the] existing controversy." Sloan v. Greenville County, 356 S.C. 531, 552, 590 S.E.2d 338, 349 (Ct. App. 2003) (alteration in original) (quoting Curtis v. State, 345 S.C. 557, 567, 549 S.E.2d 591, 596 (2001)). "The function of appellate courts is not to give opinions on merely abstract or theoretical matters, but only to decide actual controversies injuriously affecting the rights of some party to the litigation." Id. (quoting Wallace v. City of York, 276 S.C. 693, 694, 281 S.E.2d 487, 488 (1981) (per curiam) (emphasis added)). Parents pursued Daughter's entry to MPA through two methods: a transfer application within the District and a general application for admission to MPA, which is at issue in this appeal. Prior to this action, the District granted the transfer request but could not immediately enroll Daughter at MPA due to overcapacity. Therefore, the District placed Daughter on a waiting list. Following the filing of this appeal, MPA admitted Daughter off of the waitlist, eliminating any justiciable controversy between the parties. Accordingly, we dismiss the Board's appeal as moot. See id. ("[C]ases or issues which have become moot or academic in nature are not a proper subject of review." (quoting Wallace, 276 S.C. at 694, 281 S.E.2d at 488)). DISMISSED.1 WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and HILL, JJ., concur. 1 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
