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.

26411 - Montgomery v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

In this FELA case, the Court affirmed as modified the Court of Appeals' opinion which reversed summary judgment for CSX.

26412 - Dangerfield v. State

In this case, the post-conviction relief court granted partial relief to Respondent Katherine Dangerfield finding that a magistrates court’s imposition of a suspended sentence without a hearing did not afford Respondent due process of law. This Court granted certiorari to review the PCR court’s grant of relief.

26413 - State v. Campbell

This case involves the issue of whether the plea judge lacked jurisdiction to grant the State's motion to re-sentence appellant five months after his guilty plea and sentencing.

26414 - Kurschner v. City of Camden Planning Commission

This case involves an appeal from the Planning Commission's denial of the Kurschner's application to subdivide their property.

26415 - In the Matter of Jasper County Magistrate Donna D. Lynah

This is a judicial disciplinary opinion in which the Court definitely suspended a magistrate.

26416 - In the Matter of John W. Swan

In this opinion the Court publicly reprimands John W. Swan.

26417 - In the Matter of Tynika Adams Claxton

In this opinion the Court suspends Tynika Adams Claxton from the practice of law for sixty days.

26418 - State v. Morris

A jury convicted Appellant Earle E. Morris, Jr., of one count of engaging in a scheme to commit securities fraud and twenty-two counts of securities fraud. On appeal, Morris questions the trial court’s rulings as to his motion to dismiss the indictment, the introduction of several pieces of testimony and evidence, and the law on securities fraud charged to the jury. Finding no error in the trial court’s decisions on these issues, the Court affirmed.

26419 - Linog v. Yampolsky

In this case, the Court affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of respondents on appellant’s medical battery claim based on appellant’s revocation of consent.

26420 - Moseley v. Oswald

In this case, the Court reversed the court of appeals decision affirming the trial court's grant of summary judgment.

26421 - Marquez v. Caudill

This family court case involves custody and visitation issues.

26422 - In the Matter of W. James Hoffmeyer

The Court imposed a nine month suspension for ethical misconduct involving a vulnerable client.

26423 - State v. Rainwater

In this DUI appeal, we affirm the circuit court's decision: (1) reversing the magistrate court's order dismissing the case because the arresting officer prosecuting the case was no longer employed by the highway patrol; and (2) remanding the case for trial.

26424 - State v. Cottrell

The Court reversed and remanded appellant's capital murder conviction and sentence because the trial court erred in refusing to charge voluntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense.

26425 - John Doe v. Baby Girl

In this interstate adoption case, the Court decides the issues of whether the South Carolina family court has jurisdiction over the adoption action and whether an Illinois custody order is entitled to full, faith and credit.

26426 - In the Matter of O. Lee Sturkey

This is an attorney disciplinary opinion in which the Court approved of the recommended nine-month suspension, plus costs and participation in a law office management program. The Court also noted the Commission should have allowed Disciplinary Counsel to introduce counter evidence when the respondent introduced surprise lack of harm evidence in mitigation.

26427 - Layman v. State

This is an appeal of an award of $8.66 million in attorneys’ fees in which the circuit judge, acting pursuant to a prior order of this Court, awarded fees under a statute authorizing attorneys’ fees. The Court affirms the circuit judge’s decision to award attorneys’ fees, but reduces the amount awarded due to several errors of law in the circuit judge’s decision.