Case: Plyler v. Evatt

23928 | South Carolina state supreme court

Filed Date: 1991

Closed Date: 1993

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This case was a class action seeking a declaratory relief with regard to the interpretation of a South Carolina state law pertaining to inmate eligibility for participation in the Supervised Furlough Release Program (Program). The action was initially filed in the Richland County Court of Common Pleas, South Carolina on behalf of the plaintiff class in federal lawsuit Plyler v. Evatt, No. 82-876-2. The Court (Judge Luke N. Brown) ruled that S.C. Code Ann § 24-13-710 and § 24-13-720 (1989) creat…

This case was a class action seeking a declaratory relief with regard to the interpretation of a South Carolina state law pertaining to inmate eligibility for participation in the Supervised Furlough Release Program (Program). The action was initially filed in the Richland County Court of Common Pleas, South Carolina on behalf of the plaintiff class in federal lawsuit Plyler v. Evatt, No. 82-876-2. The Court (Judge Luke N. Brown) ruled that S.C. Code Ann § 24-13-710 and § 24-13-720 (1989) created two separate classification schemes to determine inmate eligibility for participation in the Program. Plyler v. Evatt, 409 S.E.2d 416 (S.C. 1991). The Department of Corrections appealed.

On appeal, the South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the decision as modified. The Supreme Court held that S.C. Code Ann § 24-13-710 and § 24-13-720 (1989) did create two separate classification schemes. However, § 24-13-710 also allowed the DOC to create additional eligibility criteria, including requiring that the inmate be within six months of expiration of his sentence to participate in the Program. Plyler v. Evatt, 438 S.E.2d 244 (S.C. 1993).

Subsequent to that opinion, the law creating the Program was amended in 1993. Following the 1993 amendment, another declaratory judgment action was filed in the Circuit Court of Richland County, South Carolina. The Circuit Judge (Carol Connor) ruled that S.C. Code Ann § 24-13-720 (1989) as amended, which created the Program, entitled all prisoners within six months of expiration of their sentences, except those serving life terms, to participate in the Program. The Department of Corrections appealed.

The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed. The Supreme Court held that S.C. Code Ann § 24-13-720 (1989) was amended in 1993 such that it created a new law, as opposed to a clarification of the old law. As such, inmates that met the statutory requirements for participation in the program prior to the 1993 change were entitled to participation in the Program. Plyler v. Evatt, 438 S.E.2d 244 (S.C. 1993).

We have no further information on this case.

 

Summary Authors

Dan Dalton (2/28/2007)

Related Cases

Plyler v. Evatt, District of South Carolina (1982)

People


Judge(s)

Finney, Ernest A. Jr. (South Carolina)

Gregory, George Tillman Jr. (South Carolina)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Fairey, W. Gaston (South Carolina)

Attorney for Defendant

Batson, Larry (South Carolina)

Lundberg, Carl N. (South Carolina)

Judge(s)

Finney, Ernest A. Jr. (South Carolina)

Gregory, George Tillman Jr. (South Carolina)

Attorney for Plaintiff

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

23484

Order

Sept. 24, 1991

Sept. 24, 1991

Order/Opinion

409 S.E.2d 409

23928

Opinion

Aug. 26, 1993

Aug. 26, 1993

Order/Opinion

1993 WL 1993

23928

Opinion

Nov. 8, 1993

Nov. 8, 1993

Order/Opinion

438 S.E.2d 438

Docket

Last updated Aug. 30, 2023, 2:26 p.m.

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

Case Details

State / Territory: South Carolina

Case Type(s):

Prison Conditions

Key Dates

Filing Date: 1991

Closing Date: 1993

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Case was brought on on behalf of the plaintiff class in Plyler v. Evatt, No. 82-876-2 (PC-SC-0004)

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

South Carolina Department of Corrections, State

Case Details

Causes of Action:

State law

Available Documents:

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Litigation

Issues

Type of Facility:

Government-run