South Carolina              
Administrative Law Court
Edgar A. Brown building 1205 Pendleton St., Suite 224 Columbia, SC 29201 Voice: (803) 734-0550

SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

CAPTION:
SCDOR vs. C. Dwight Cox, Pee Dee Amusements, et al

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Revenue

PARTIES:
Petitioners:
South Carolina Department of Revenue

Respondents:
C. Dwight Cox, Pee Dee Amusements, Paul D. Sanders, d/b/a Minnesoda Fats, d/b/a Dealers, d/b/a Dealer's Choice
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
96-ALJ-17-0538-CC

APPEARANCES:
Carol I. McMahan, Esquire, for Petitioner

G. Scott Bellamy, Esquire, for Respondent
 

ORDERS:

ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

This matter comes before me on Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration of the Order and Decision dated June 23, 1997 in the above-captioned matter. The motion is filed pursuant to ALJD Rule 29(C) and seeks reconsideration of the order, "based upon the statutory and decisional law of the State of South Carolina." For the reasons stated below, the motion is DENIED.

"In cases permitting an agency to reconsider its decision, courts have emphasized that an agency's power to reconsider or rehear a case is not an arbitrary one, and such power should be exercised only when there is justification and good cause; i.e., newly discovered evidence, fraud, surprise, mistake, inadvertence or change in conditions." Bennett v. City of Clemson, 293 S.C. 64, 66-67, 358 S.E.2d 707, 708-09 (1987) (citing 2 Am.Jur.2d, Administrative Law, § 522 et seq. (1962 & Supp.1986)). "[A] party cannot use a motion to reconsider, alter, or amend a judgment to present an issue that could have been raised prior to the judgment but was not so raised." Anonymous (M-156-90) v. State Bd. of Med. Examiners, ___ S.C. ___, 473 S.E.2d 870, 880 (Ct. App. 1996) (citing Patterson v. Reid, 318 S.C. 183, 456 S.E.2d 436, 437 (Ct. App. 1995) and Anderson Memorial Hosp., Inc., v. Hagen, 313 S.C. 497, 498, 443 S.E.2d 399, 400 (Ct. App. 1994)). Cf. Rule 59(a), SCRCP.

In its "Notice of Motion and Motion for Reconsideration, and/or Relief From Judgement" Respondent does not present any legal rationale that would warrant reconsideration in this matter. Respondent has not cited to any newly discovered facts or evidence, any mistake or inadvertence, fraud, surprise, or any change in conditions to suggest that the order in judgement is incorrect and not in compliance with the statutory or decisional law of the state. The Respondent therefore, has not demonstrated justification or good cause to reconsider the provisions of the Order. Respondent's motion is DENIED.

AND SO IT IS ORDERED.



___________________________

ALISON RENEE LEE

Administrative Law Judge



July 10, 1997

Columbia, South Carolina


Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2021 South Carolina Administrative Law Court