The summary following each opinion is prepared to offer lawyers and the public a general overview of what a particular opinion decides. The summary is not necessarily a full description of the issues discussed in an opinion.

Appellants, H.R. Allen, Inc. (Employer) and Zurich North America (Zurich), appeal from an order of the circuit court affirming the Workers' Compensation Commission's Appellate Panel's (Commission's) award of benefits to Respondent Gaines Adams. We hold procedural due process requires that the parties to a rehearing must be provided an opportunity to be heard and to confront and cross-examine witnesses. We vacate the circuit court's ruling and remand the case to the Commission to conduct a de novo hearing on the merits.

George Way appeals the family court's order granting him a divorce from Mary Way (Wife), arguing the family court erred in ordering him to pay Wife $20,000 as part of the equitable division of marital property and $500 per month in alimony. We affirm as modified.

These cross appeals arise out of a broken engagement between Matthew Campbell and Ashley Robinson. Campbell appeals the trial court's (1) denial of his motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and (2) overruling of his objections to the jury charge and verdict form. Robinson appeals the trial court's denial of her post-trial motions. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

The Court of Appeals affirms the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the City of Spartanburg on Carolina Convenience Store's inverse condemnation claim against the City, finding the City's actions did not consitute a taking as contemplated under the South Carolina Constitution or South Carolina case law.

Peter Noce, Melinda Noce, DDLabs, Inc., AvVenta Worldwide, Inc., AvVenta Worldwide, S.A., AvVenta Holdings, LLC, and Wild Dunes Investments (Appellants) appeal an order of the circuit court denying their motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens. We dismiss the appeal as not immediately appealable.

In this appeal, Charles Bickerstaff and Barbara Magera (Appellants) argue the circuit court erred in finding it lacked jurisdiction to consider Appellants' motion to set the rate of interest. Appellants contend: (1) the rate of interest applicable post-judgment was established in a prior order of the circuit court, and that order is the law of the case; (2) the circuit court erred in declining to consider matters not affected by this court's decision in the initial appellate process; (3) a post-judgment interest rate of 1% per day is punitive and grossly disproportionate to the amount of principal; and (4) the imposition of excessive post-judgment interest violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.

Forrest Byrd (Byrd) appeals from the trial court's order finding an agreement, which stemmed from a land purchase, was enforceable. Byrd argues the court erred in: (1) finding his son was a discretionary party to the agreement; (2) concluding the subsequent conduct of the parties and attorneys established the parties had a meeting of the minds on all terms of the agreement; (3) failing to apply the law of joint contracts to the motion to enforce the agreement; (4) failing to apply the legal principle of condition precedent to his alleged obligation with respect to a final settlement agreement; and (5) ruling the agreement's provision that included his son was severable from the remainder of the agreement.

In this criminal appeal, the Court of Appeals affirms the circuit court's decision to deny the defendant's motion for a mistrial on grounds that a juror's discussion of the case with her mother prejudiced the defendant.

Appellant Greeneagle, Inc. (Greeneagle) appeals from an order of the Administrative Law Court (ALC) upholding Respondent South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control's (DHEC) decision to deny Greeneagle's landfill permit application. On appeal, Greeneagle argues the ALC erred as a matter of law by finding DHEC properly denied its permit application because the proposed landfill was inconsistent with the 2007 York County Solid Waste Management Plan. We affirm.