Note: Beginning in June 2012, opinions will be posted as Adobe PDFs. You can download a free copy of Adobe Reader here.

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.

5491 - Foran v. Murphy USA

This is a workers' compensation case arising from injuries Jenna Foran suffered while stocking cigarettes at a convenience store. Foran appeals the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission's denial of compensation, arguing the Commission erred in finding her injury was an idiopathic fall not compensable as an "injury by accident arising out of and in the course of [her] employment." S.C. Code Ann. § 42-1-160 (2015). We reverse and remand.

5492 - State v. Thompson

Demario Monte Thompson appeals his convictions of first-degree burglary and third-degree assault and battery, arguing the trial court erred by (1) admitting a trespass notice letter into evidence; (2) admitting the entire recording of a 911 call into evidence; (3) denying his motion for a directed verdict on the first-degree burglary charge; and (4) denying his motion for a new trial. We affirm.

5493 - Tillman v. Tillman

We dismiss the appeal after analyzing whether an order denying a motion to reconsider an order that granted a motion to dismiss is immediately appealable when it also grants the party leave to file a motion to amend the pleadings. We find the order is not immediately appealable.

6-28-2017 - Opinions

5494 - Wachesaw Plantation v. Alexander

In this lien foreclosure action filed by Respondent Wachesaw Plantation East Community Services Association, Inc. (the Association), Appellant Todd C. Alexander (Homeowner) seeks review of an order of the Master-in-Equity denying his motion to vacate the judicial sale of his property. Homeowner argues (1) the master erred in denying the motion to vacate because the sale price was inadequate and was accompanied by other circumstances warranting the interference of the court, namely, Homeowner's health problems and his lack of prior knowledge of the judicial sale; (2) the sale constituted a forfeiture of Homeowner's property because the sale was involuntary and resulted in a price that was $135,000 less than the property's tax valuation; (3) the third-party bidder, Respondent William George (Bidder), was unjustly enriched because Homeowner was unable to attend the sale; and (4) Homeowner had an equitable right to redeem his property up to the time Bidder complied with the bid and received the deed to the property. We affirm.