James S. Eakes, of Allen & Eakes, and David James Brousseau, of McIntosh, Sherard, Sullivan & Brousseau, both of Anderson, for Appellant. James Thomas McLaren and Joshua McNeil Calder, both of McLaren & Lee, of Columbia, for Respondent.

Appellant Elizabeth Holland (Wife) appeals the family court's dismissal of a contempt action brought against Respondent Richard Holland (Husband) for failing to pay child support. Wife argues the family court erred by finding that because the youngest child had reached the age of majority more than ten years before the commencement of the action, enforcement of the child support order was barred under section 15-39-30 of the South Carolina Code (2005). Additionally, Wife contends the family court erred by not holding a hearing to establish a record and determine whether equitable estoppel applied and whether Wife was entitled to interest on the principal amount owed and attorney's fees and costs. We reverse and remand.

Arthur Kerr Aiken, of Aiken & Hightower, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Deborah R.J. Shupe, both of Columbia, for Respondent.

Richard Ridley appeals his commitment to the South Carolina Department of Mental Health (the Department) as a sexually violent predator (SVP). On appeal, Ridley argues the trial court erred in admitting expert testimony regarding his diagnosis of "Other Specified Paraphilic Disorder (Biastophilia/Non Consent)."

M. Dawes Cooke, Jr., of Barnwell Whaley Patterson & Helms, LLC, and Anna Louise Strandberg, both of Charleston; and Ashley Bryan Abel, of Greenville, for Appellant. Thomas H. Pope, III, of Pope Parker Jenkins, P.A., of Newberry, and John P. Freeman, of Seattle, WA, for Respondent.

William C. Wood, Jr., of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP, of Columbia; Miles Edward Coleman, of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP, of Greenville; Robert J. McNamara, of Arlington, VA; and Joshua A. Windham, of Arlington, VA, for Appellant. Eugene Hamilton Matthews, of Richardson Plowden & Robinson, PA, of Columbia, for Respondents South Carolina Board of Medical Examiners and South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation. Kirby Darr Shealy, III, of Adams and Reese LLP, of Columbia, for Respondent South Carolina Optometric Physicians Association.

In this action, Opternative, Inc., (Opternative) sought declaratory judgment that sections 40-24-10 and 40-24-20 of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2019) violate Article I, Section 3 of the South Carolina Constitution. Opternative also sought an injunction forbidding the South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation (the Department) and the South Carolina Board of Medical Examiners (the Board) from enforcing said statutes. The trial court found Opternative did not have standing to bring the action and granted summary judgment in favor of the Department and the Board. On appeal, Opternative argues the trial court erred because Opternative suffered an injury in fact caused by the statutes and a ruling in its favor would redress its injury.

William G. Yarborough, III, and Lauren Carole Hobbis, both of William G. Yarborough III, Attorney at Law, LLC, of Greenville, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Jonathan Scott Matthews, both of Columbia, for Respondent.

Jonathan Ostrowski appeals convictions for trafficking methamphetamine (28 grams or more), possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime, possession of a handgun by a person convicted of a crime of violence, and possession of a handgun with the serial number obliterated. He challenges his conviction on seven grounds, including the trial court's rejection of a motion to suppress, the admission of certain testimony and other evidence, and what he argues were improper jury instructions.

C. Mitchell Brown, Allen Mattison Bogan, James Bruce Glenn, and Nicholas Andrew Charles, all of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP, of Columbia, for Appellants. Theile Branham McVey and John D. Kassel, both of Kassel McVey, of Columbia; and Jonathan Marshall Holder and Lisa White Shirley, both of Dallas, TX, for Respondents.

In this mesothelioma case, Appellants, Fisher Controls International LLC and Crosby Valve, LLC, seek review of the circuit court's denial of their motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), its granting of a new trial nisi additur to Respondents Beverly Dale Jolly and Brenda Rice Jolly, its partial denial of Appellants' motion for setoff, and its denial of their motion to quash subpoenas for their corporate representatives. Appellants argue (1) there was no reliable evidence that Beverly Dale Jolly's workplace exposure to their products proximately caused his mesothelioma; (2) Respondents failed to meet their burden of proof on their failure to warn claim; (3) Respondents failed to meet their burden of proving a design defect for purposes of their negligence and implied warranty claims; (4) Respondents failed to show Appellants deviated from the standard of care; (5) the circuit court failed to articulate compelling reasons for granting an additur; (6) the circuit court improperly allowed Respondents to allocate settlement funds to nonexistent claims for the purpose of avoiding the statutorily-required setoff; (7) Respondents failed to properly serve subpoenas on Appellants' corporate representatives; and (8) the circuit court lacked power to compel out-of-state witnesses to testify.

Susan Barber Hackett, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Sherrie Butterbaugh, both of Columbia, for Respondent.

Robert Lee Miller, III, a juvenile offender, appeals his sentence of fifty-five years imprisonment for murder. Miller argues the trial court sentenced him to a de facto life sentence, which he asserts is appropriate only based on a finding of irreparable corruption under Aiken v. Byars. Miller also appeals the trial court's admission of statements he made to officers during a custodial interrogation, asserting he did not voluntarily and knowingly waive his Miranda rights due to his age, his low intellectual function, and the coercive pressure officers applied during interrogation.

Ian Douglas McVey, of Turner Padget Graham & Laney, PA, of Columbia; and Jude C. Cooper, of Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Appellant. James S. Eakes, of Allen & Eakes, of Anderson; and David James Brousseau, of McIntosh, Sherard, Sullivan & Brousseau, of Anderson, for Respondent.

In this contract dispute, UniFirst Corporation appeals the denial of its motion for summary judgment, arguing the lower court erred in finding the Federal Arbitration Act did not preempt the notice provisions of the South Carolina Uniform Arbitration Act. UniFirst Corporation also argues the lower court erred in finding Hicks Unlimited sufficiently alleged unconscionability as a defense to the enforceability of the agreement to arbitrate.

William A. Scott, of Pedersen & Scott, PC, of Charleston, for Appellant. Larry D. Cohen, of Larry D. Cohen LLC, and Carolyn H. Blue, both of Charleston, for Respondent.

In this breach of contract case, Appellant Palmetto Contract Services, Inc. (Palmetto) appeals the circuit court's order granting Respondent Zurich American Insurance Company's (Zurich) motion to strike Palmetto's jury trial demand in its amended pleading. Palmetto argues its right to a jury trial was revived when it raised counterclaims for the first time in its amended complaint. Additionally, Palmetto asserts its counterclaims raise new issues of fact that also revive its right to a jury trial.

E. Charles Grose, Jr., of Grose Law Firm, of Greenwood, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Samuel Marion Bailey, both of Columbia, for Respondent.

Victor R Seeger, of Columbia, for Petitioner. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Johnny Ellis James, Jr., both of Columbia, for Respondent.

In this action for post-conviction relief (PCR), Larry Tyler (Petitioner) argues the PCR court erred in finding trial counsel provided effective assistance of counsel. Specifically, Petitioner argues trial counsel was ineffective in failing to move to sever the trial of Petitioner's charge for second-degree sexual exploitation of a minor from the trial of his remaining charges: criminal solicitation of a minor; disseminating harmful material to minors; and contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

Forrest Truett Nettles, II, of Finkel Law Firm LLC, of North Charleston, for Appellant. Richard B. Ness, Richard Aaron Ness, and Alison Dennis Hood, all of Ness & Jett, LLC, of Bamberg, for Respondent.

Henry Still appeals the circuit court's dismissal of his action to contest his mother's will, arguing (1) section 62-1-302(a) of the South Carolina Code provides an exception to the probate court's jurisdiction that allowed the circuit court to adjudicate the claims, and (2) Rule 82 of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure requires the circuit court to transfer the case to the probate court, rather than dismiss it.

Chief Appellate Defender Robert Michael Dudek and David Nelson Lyon, of Duff Freeman Lyon, LLC, both of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Mark Reynolds Farthing, both of Columbia, for Respondent.

Mr. Darrell Boston appeals his conviction for manufacturing crack cocaine, contending the court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence because law enforcement officers did not have reasonable suspension to conduct a "knock and talk." The State asserts that at the time of the incident, which took place just before the decision in State v. Counts was filed, the actions of the officers were in keeping with legal precedence, and thus the conviction should be affirmed.

Robert Norris Hill, of Law Office of Robert Hill, of Lexington; and William P. Hatfield, of Hatfield Temple, LLP, of Florence, for Appellant. Andrew F. Lindemann, of Lindemann, Davis & Hughes, PA, of Columbia; C. Heath Ruffner, of McLeod & Ruffner, of Cheraw; and Kevin Lindsay Terrell, of Clarkson, Walsh & Coulter, P.A., of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

Christopher Lampley appeals from an order granting partial summary judgment to the Dillon County Sheriff based on section 15-78-60(14) of the South Carolina Code. Lampley argues the trial court erred in (1) not finding section 15-78-60(14) unambiguously allows Lampley to recover damages from the Sheriff because the Sheriff was not his employer; (2) improperly altering the statute's unambiguous text with canons that do not apply; and (3) focusing on who funded the insurance, rather than who employed Lampley, which interjected uncertainty into an unambiguous statute.

Joseph DuBois, of Liberty Oak Law Firm, LLC, of Hilton Head Island, for Appellant. Lee E. Dixon, of Hedrick Gardner Kincheloe & Garofalo, LLP, and Nikole Deanna Haltiwanger, of Holder, Padgett, Littlejohn & Prickett, LLC, both of Columbia, for Respondents.

Francisco Cedano Ramirez argues the Workers' Compensation Commission erred in finding he elected to exclude himself from the insurance coverage he purchased for Cedano Roofing, his sole proprietorship. He also argues he qualifies as either a direct employee or a statutory employee of a different business-May River Roofing Company-and that the commission erred in finding the parties stipulated the amount of his compensation rate.