The South Carolina Supreme Court dismissed a closely watched municipal boundary dispute between the City of Charleston and the City of North Charleston in a unanimous decision filed Tuesday. The court declined to rule on the merits of the case, instead dismissing the writ of certiorari as "improvidently granted."
The case, *City of Charleston v. City of North Charleston*, involved a dispute between the two neighboring municipalities over Millbrook Plantation, LLC. The Supreme Court had initially agreed to review a 2023 Court of Appeals decision that ruled in favor of North Charleston, but ultimately decided not to proceed with the review.
The brief per curiam opinion, signed by all five justices, provided no explanation for the dismissal beyond the standard language used when a court determines it should not have accepted a case for review. Chief Justice Kittredge and Justices Few, James, Hill, and Verdin all concurred in the decision.
"We granted a writ of certiorari to review the court of appeals' decision in City of Charleston v. City of North Charleston, 439 S.C. 6, 885 S.E.2d 151 (Ct. App. 2023). We now dismiss the writ as improvidently granted," the court wrote in the entirety of its substantive analysis.
The dismissal means the 2023 Court of Appeals ruling remains the final word on the dispute. That decision, issued by the South Carolina Court of Appeals, had resolved the matter in favor of the respondents - the City of North Charleston and Millbrook Plantation, LLC.
The case originated in Charleston County, where Circuit Court Judge Eugene C. Griffith Jr. initially heard the dispute. The matter then proceeded through the appellate courts, eventually reaching the state's highest court after Charleston petitioned for review.
Charleston was represented by a team of attorneys including Frances Isaac Cantwell from the City of Charleston Legal Department, Julia Parker Copeland (formerly of the city's legal department), and Wilbur E. Johnson and Russell Grainger Hines from the Charleston-based firm Clement Rivers, LLP.
North Charleston and Millbrook Plantation were represented by separate counsel. Bruce E. Miller of Bruce E. Miller, P.A., based in Mount Pleasant, represented Millbrook Plantation. North Charleston's legal team included David J. Parrish of Maynard Nexsen PC in Charleston and Kriston D. Neely of North Charleston.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case on April 1, 2025, before ultimately deciding to dismiss the matter nearly 10 months later. The extended deliberation period suggested the justices gave careful consideration to whether the case merited Supreme Court review.
A dismissal as "improvidently granted" is relatively uncommon in state supreme court practice. Such dismissals typically occur when a court determines, after further consideration, that the case does not present the type of legal issues that warrant high court review, or when circumstances have changed since the court initially agreed to hear the case.
The dismissal effectively ends what had been a multi-year legal battle between the two Charleston-area municipalities. Municipal boundary disputes often involve complex questions of local government law, land use regulations, and economic development rights.
While the Supreme Court provided no insight into the underlying legal issues that prompted the original dispute, such cases typically arise from disagreements over annexation rights, development approvals, or jurisdictional boundaries between neighboring municipalities.
The involvement of Millbrook Plantation, LLC as a party suggests the dispute may have centered on development rights or land use decisions affecting property within or near the boundaries of both cities. Such disputes can have significant economic implications for municipalities, affecting tax revenues and development planning.
For Charleston, the dismissal represents the end of its efforts to challenge the Court of Appeals ruling. The city had invested significant legal resources in pursuing the case through multiple levels of appellate review.
The decision also provides finality for North Charleston and Millbrook Plantation, which can now proceed with confidence that the 2023 Court of Appeals ruling will stand. That decision, whatever its specific holdings, resolved the dispute in their favor.
Municipal law experts note that such inter-governmental disputes are not uncommon in rapidly growing metropolitan areas where municipal boundaries may not clearly delineate development rights or regulatory authority. The Charleston metropolitan area has experienced significant growth and development pressure in recent years.
The case's dismissal means that future similar disputes will be guided by the 2023 Court of Appeals decision rather than any new precedent from the state Supreme Court. Lower courts handling comparable municipal disputes will look to that appellate ruling for guidance on relevant legal principles.
The Supreme Court's decision to hear oral arguments before ultimately dismissing the case suggests the justices initially viewed the matter as presenting important legal questions worthy of review. However, their ultimate conclusion that the writ was improvidently granted indicates they determined the case was not suitable for Supreme Court resolution.