Please note that our new website has been designed for a minimum resolution of 1024 x 768. If you use a lower resolution (i.e. 800 x 600), you should use the printer friendly version to read the opinions.

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.

Appellant Warren Schulthess seeks review of an order requiring him to pay damages to Respondents Peter Santoro and Mary Santoro for trespass and for intentional interference with prospective contractual relations. Schulthess also appeals the requirements that he lower the level of his pond and remove a motor home from his property. We reverse.

Appellant Gerald Bass filed this negligence action after he was shot at a motel owned and operated by Respondent Gopal, Inc. The circuit court granted summary judgment to Gopal, Inc. and Respondent Super 8 Motels, Inc. on the grounds that (1) they owed no duty of care to protect Bass; (2) the negligence of Bass exceeded any negligence on the part of Gopal and Super 8; and (3) Bass presented no evidence that Super 8 operated the motel in question. Bass challenges the circuit court's order on all three grounds. We affirm.

Dr. Steven C. Hobbs argues the trial court erred in granting Cole Vision Corporation's (Cole) Rule 12(b)(6), SCRCP, motion to dismiss. Specifically, Hobbs maintains he pled facts sufficient to constitute a negligence cause of action, while the trial court found spoliation of evidence an evidentiary matter which cannot serve as the basis for an independent cause of action under South Carolina law. We reverse.

Stacy Howard appeals his conviction for assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature (ABHAN). Howard argues the trial court erred in: 1) declining to grant his motion for a mistrial; 2) refusing to recuse himself and interfering with Howard's presentation of a defense by wrongfully removing relevant testimony; 3) admitting irrelevant evidence; 4) admitting Howard's prior convictions into evidence; and 5) holding a probation revocation hearing and revoking Howard's probation without a warrant. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

Lanier Construction Company, Inc., a subcontractor, sued its general contractor Bailey & Yobs, Inc. and the homeowners, Mike and Tami Cupp, after its cement truck fell into the Cupps' septic tank while making a cement delivery ordered by B&Y. Lanier and B&Y appeal the circuit court's grant of the Cupps' summary judgment motion. The Appellants argue summary judgment was improper because: (1) the court improperly determined the Cupps did not owe Lanier a duty of care; and (2) evidence supports a finding that the Cupps voluntarily assumed the duty to make the premises safe by marking the septic tank location. Additionally, the Appellants argue the trial court failed to address whether the Cupps assumed a duty of care by agreeing to mark the septic tank location, even after Lanier's Rule 59 motion to alter or amend the judgment.

Scott Trowell appeals the circuit court's order affirming the decision of the State Human Resources Director that his appeal of an internal grievance matter was untimely. Trowell asserts the circuit court erred in finding service was perfected upon the Department of Public Safety's facsimile of its final agency decision, thereby initiating the time frame in which Trowell had to appeal. We reverse and remand.