Horry Telephone Cooperative, Inc. v. City of Georgetown, 759 S.E.2d 132

HTC sought a state-franchise to provide cable in Georgetown under the Competitive Cable Services Act.
Secretary of State forwarded HTC's application to Georgetown, which had 65 days to respond.
Georgetown approved the request at a city council meeting but denied it on second reading.
HTC sought reconsideration; denial followed; a third filing was tabled and failed.
HTC filed a declaratory judgment action; the circuit court held the Act did not create a private action and the denial was reasonable.
This appeal followed, and the Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the Act create a private action for aggrieved providers?	HTC argues the statute's text creates a private action.	City/Secretary argue no private action exists.	Yes; the Act creates a private action.
Was the City’s denial of consent reasonable under the Act?	HTC contends denial violated the Act (build-out/anti-competitive reasons).	City asserts reasons supported by the record and proper judicial limits on motive analysis.	Yes; denial was reasonable.

Berkley Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Town of Mount Pleasant, 308 S.C. 205 (S.C. 1992) (competent evidence governs municipal proceedings; court cannot rely on improper motives)
Whaley v. Dorchester County Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 337 S.C. 568 (S.C. 1999) (judicial inquiry into legislative motives is inappropriate)
Pressley v. Lancaster County, 343 S.C. 696 (S.C. 2001) (avoid inquiry into motives behind legislative action)
Townes Associates Ltd. v. City of Greenville, 266 S.C. 81 (S.C. 1976) (findings of fact reviewed for evidentiary support in bench trials)
Columbia Ry., Gas & Elec. Co. v. Carter, 127 S.C. 473 (S.C. 1924) (rejection of improper motives in legislative action)
State v. Cardozo, 5 S.C. 297 (S.C. 1874) (limits on judicial inquiry into legislative intent)