Richard S. Rosen and John Edward Rosen, both of Rosen Rosen & Hagood, LLC, of Charleston, for Appellant. Frank M. Cisa of The Law Firm of Cisa & Dodds, LLP, of Mt. Pleasant, for Respondents.

Mary Amanda Harrelson Shuler, of Whetstone Perkins & Fulda, LLC, of Kingstree, for Appellants. Kimberly Veronica Barr and Ronnie Alan Sabb, both of Sabb Law Group, LLC, of Kingstree, for Respondent. Adrian Desmond Dukes, of McAngus Goudelock & Courie, LLC, of Columbia, for Respondent.

James Paul Porter and J. Lewis Cromer, both of Cromer Babb Porter & Hicks, LLC, of Columbia, for Appellant. Bob J. Conley of Cleveland & Conley, LLC, of Charleston, for Respondents. Rene Stuhr Dukes of Rosen Rosen & Hagood, LLC, of Charleston, for Respondents.

Jennifer Kirk Dunlap and Frederick Elliotte Quinn, IV, both of Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein, LLP, of Charleston, for Appellant. Chief Appellate Defender Robert Michael Dudek, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, and Assistant Attorney General J. Anthony Mabry, all of Columbia, for Respondent. Solicitor Isaac McDuffie Stone, III, of Bluffton, for Respondent.

Aaron Young, Jr. (Young, Jr.) appeals his conviction for murder and attempted murder. Young, Jr. argues the trial court erred in denying: (1) his motion for a directed verdict on the murder charge because the State's mutual combat theory was not supported by South Carolina law or the evidence at trial; (2) his request for a jury charge on the end of mutual combat; and (3) his motion for a directed verdict on the attempted murder charge.

Chris Paton of Chris Paton, LLC, of Mount Pleasant, for Appellant. Courtney Wall Kerce of Payne Law Firm, LLC, of Daniel Island, for Appellant. Gregory Samuel Forman of Gregory S. Forman, PC, of Charleston, for Respondent.

Frederick Tranfield (Father) appeals the ruling of the family court awarding custody of his two minor children to their Mother, Lilly Tranfield. Father argues the family court erred in: (1) awarding sole custody of the children to Mother and restricting his visitation; (2) delegating authority to his therapist to determine visitation restrictions; (3) ordering he undergo a psychosexual evaluation; (4) awarding alimony; (5) incorrectly apportioning the parties' debts and assets; (6) awarding Mother attorney's fees; (7) restraining his speech; and (8) ordering support to be paid through income withholding.

George M. Hearn, Jr. of Hearn & Hearn, PA, of Conway, for Appellant. Mary Madison Brittain Langway and Thomas C. Brittain, both of The Brittain Law Firm, P.A., of Myrtle Beach, for Appellant. Henry Wilkins Frampton, IV, and Susan Taylor Wall, both of Gordon & Rees LLP, of Charleston, for Respondents.

In this negligence action, Donna Jenson argues the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Matthew Wiseman and People's Underwriters, Inc. (collectively, Respondents). Specifically, Jenson contends the circuit court erred in considering whether she had an insurable interest in automobiles covered under a commercial insurance policy (the Policy) because Respondents did not raise this issue to the court. Jenson further argues she submitted more than a mere scintilla of evidence demonstrating that Wiseman was negligent in failing adequately advise her when she procured the Policy from him.

Karl Huggins Smith of Smith Watts & Associates, LLC, of Hartsville, for Appellants. Blake A. Hewitt of Bluestein Thompson Sullivan, LLC, of Columbia, for Appellants. Jonathan M. Robinson of DuBose Robinson Morgan, PC, of Camden, for Respondent.

In this action for declaratory judgment, Beverly Goyeneche (Grandmother) and Amanda Goyeneche (Mother) appeal the circuit court's order finding claims arising from the death of S.G. (Infant) are excluded from coverage and that State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company has no duty to defend or indemnify Grandmother, Mother, or David R. Gray, III (Father). Grandmother and Mother (collectively, Appellants) argue the circuit court erred in (1) finding the policies at issue did not provide coverage for Infant's death; (2) rejecting persuasive authority from other jurisdictions; (3) determining Infant was a resident relative of only Mother's household; and (4) finding Appellants failed to preserve the residency issue by failing to raise it in their motion to alter or amend judgment.

Stephen J. Wukela of Wukela Law Office, of Florence, for Appellant. G. Murrell Smith, Jr. of Lee, Erter, Wilson, Holler & Smith, LLC, of Sumter, for Respondents.

James G. Carpenter of Carpenter Law Firm, PC, of Greenville, for Appellants. Keith Robert Powell of Duff & Childs, LLC, of Columbia, for Respondents.

In this procurement case, Appellant South Carolina Public Interest Foundation (SC Public Interest) seeks review of the circuit court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Respondent Jasper County School District (School District) on SC Public Interest's claims. SC Public Interest argues the circuit court should have declared the procurement method used by the School District to secure construction services for the renovation of its Bees Creek school facility violated the Jasper County Board of Education Procurement Code Policy. SC Public Interest further maintains that while this case was pending in the circuit court, Jasper County Board of Trustees passed a Resolution to suspend all actions on the Bees Creek contract which made the case unripe for decision by the circuit court, and therefore, summary judgment was improper.

Appellate Defender David Alexander, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr., both of Columbia, for Respondent. Solicitor Daniel Edward Johnson, of Columbia, for Respondent.

Appellant Michael Juan Smith challenges his convictions for attempted murder, possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime, possession of a weapon by a person convicted of a violent felony, possession of a weapon by a person convicted of a crime of violence, and unlawful carrying of a pistol. Appellant argues the trial court erred in instructing the jury that they could infer malice based on the "felony murder rule" because the underlying predicate felonies were not inherently dangerous and involved merely possession of a firearm. Appellant also argues he was entitled to a directed verdict on the attempted murder charge because the State failed to prove he had the specific intent to kill the victim.

Deputy Chief Appellate Defender Wanda H. Carter, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, and Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General John Benjamin Aplin, both of Columbia, for Respondent. Solicitor Samuel R. Hubbard, III, of Lexington, for Respondent.

Joe Ross Worley appeals his convictions for assault and battery with intent to kill (ABWIK) and possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime, arguing the trial court erred in (1) ruling Worley was not entitled to immunity from prosecution for ABWIK under the Protection of Persons and Property Act, and (2) not granting a mistrial when the solicitor made comments in his closing argument that constituted improper comments on Worley's right not to testify and impermissibly shifted the State's burden of proof to Worley.