context: We do not find Looper has suffered an injury; therefore, we find Looper is not aggrieved. We analogize the order in this case to an order denying a motion to suppress evidence, which is an interlocutory order that is not immediately appealable.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 747 S.E.2d 677, 680
citation_a.parenthetical: analogizing the denial of a request for immunity under the Protection of Persons and Property Act to the denial of a motion to dismiss a criminal case on the ground of double jeopardy and finding it not immediately appealable
citation_a.sentence: See State v. Hubbard, 277 S.C. 568, 569, 290 S.E.2d 817, 817 (1982) (finding the appeal from the denial of a motion to suppress evidence is interlocutory); see also State v. Isaac, 405 S.C. 177, 184, 747 S.E.2d 677, 680 (2013) (analogizing the denial of a request for immunity under the Protection of Persons and Property Act to the denial of a motion to dismiss a criminal case on the ground of double jeopardy and finding it not immediately appealable).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 277 S.C. 568, 569
citation_b.parenthetical: finding the appeal from the denial of a motion to suppress evidence is interlocutory
citation_b.sentence: See State v. Hubbard, 277 S.C. 568, 569, 290 S.E.2d 817, 817 (1982) (finding the appeal from the denial of a motion to suppress evidence is interlocutory); see also State v. Isaac, 405 S.C. 177, 184, 747 S.E.2d 677, 680 (2013) (analogizing the denial of a request for immunity under the Protection of Persons and Property Act to the denial of a motion to dismiss a criminal case on the ground of double jeopardy and finding it not immediately appealable).