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.

26046 - Mims Amusement Company v. SLED

State law enforcement authorities seized a Safari Skill video game machine and a magistrate ordered the machine destroyed after determining it was an illegal gambling device pursuant to applicable statutes. The machine's owner requested a jury trial on the forfeiture of the machine. The magistrate denied the request, but the circuit court reversed and remanded the case to the magistrate for a jury trial when there is a factual dispute about the legality of a particular machine. The Supreme Court, reversing the circuit court, concluded a video game machine seized by authorities and alleged to be an illegal gambling device is an item of contraband per se. The Supreme Court held that the owner of such a machine does not have a constitutional right to demand a jury trial in a civil forfeiture proceeding to determine whether the machine is an illegal gambling device.

This is an order placing an attorney on interim suspension.

26047 - Stonhard, Inc. v. Carolina Flooring Specialists

The Court answered, in the negative, the following three questions: 1) May a non-compete agreement that contains a New Jersey choice-of-law provision but no geographical limitation be reformed (or “blue penciled”) in accordance with New Jersey law and then enforced in South Carolina?; 2) May a non-compete agreement that is reformed (or “blue penciled”) under New Jersey law apply to support an award of damages for breaches occurring prior to the time the agreement is reformed?; and 3) Does South Carolina law allow a court to grant equitable relief extending the term of a non-compete agreement beyond its stated expiration date?

26048 - Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc. v. Platinum Technologies, Inc.

This is a breach-of-contract case involving a contract for the sale of goods. The Court granted a writ fo certiorari to review Hitachi Elec. Devices (USA), Inc. v. Platinum Tech., Inc., Op. No. 2003-UP-766 (S.C. Ct. App. filed December 31, 2003), in which the Court of Appeals held that a buyer's failure to give notice of breach, as required by article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code, does not prevent the buyer from pursuing common-law or contractual remedies. The Court reversed.

26049 - Glaze v. State

The Court granted a writ of certiorari to review the denial of post-conviction relief (PCR) to Petitioner. The Court affirmed. The Court held that a "time served" sentence that results from an uncounseled misdemeanor conviction is not unconstitutional, so the conviction can constitutionally be used for sentence enhancement.

This is an order placing an attorney on incapacity inactive status.

26050 - Simmons v. Mark Lift Industries, Inc.

This case has been certified from the U.S. District Court. The issues involve the liability of a successor corporation in a product liability case.

26051 - State v. Sapp

This is a death penalty case. The issues on appeal involve the trial court's removal of a juror for cause, and limitation of the defendant's cross-examination of a state's witness as to whether she wished to see the defendant sentenced to death.

26052 - In the Matter of Charleston County Magistrate James B. Gosnell, Jr.,

This is a judicial disciplinary opinioin in which the Court publicly reprimanded a magistrate.

26053 - In the Matter of Karl Bryant Allen

This is an attorney disciplinary opinion in which the Court issued a public reprimand.

26054 - In the Matter of Ernest Hamilton

This is an attorney disciplinary matter in which the Court imposed a public reprimand.

26055 - In the Matter of C. Craig Young

This is an attorney disciplinary opinion in which the Court imposed a public reprimand.

26056 - In the Matter of John J. Dodds, III

This is an attorney disciplinary opinion in which the Court imposed a definite suspension.

26057 - In the Matter of Walter W. Brooks

This is an opinion placing an attorney on indefinite suspension.

26058 - In the Matter of Charleston Municipal Court Judge Joseph S. Mendelsohn

This is a disciplinary opinion in which the Court publicly reprimands a judge.

This is an order which changes the early filing deadline for the July Bar Examination.

This is an order granting a petition for reinstatement.

This order dismisses the writ of certiorari in this case as improvidently granted.