Supreme Court Seal
Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
Judicial Department
Court of Appeals Published Opinions - November 2001

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.

11-5-2001 - Opinions

3399 - Mayer v. M. S. Bailey

Plaintifs appeal from the trial courts grant of summary judgment to the Defendant, arguing as contingent remaindermen the SOL did not begin to run against them until the death of the life tenant.

3400 - Young v. Cooler

Reversal of circuit court decision enforcing an alleged settlement agreement where evidence of mutual mistake existed and the record did not indicate that an agreement existed under Rule 43(k), SCRCP.

3401 - Eubank v. Eubank

In this domestic appeal, Husband argues he was entitled to a modification or termination of his alimony obligation based on Wife's inheritances and his own economic misfortune.

3402 - State v. Wimbush

Defendant appeals from two convictions of murder and possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime, raising two issues on appeal: 1)denial of a directed verdict and 2) objectionable testimony of a state witness.

3403 - Christy v. Christy

This is a family court action applying Rule 63, SCRCP.

3404 - State v. Stuckey

This opinion discusses whether the trial court properly refused to grant separate trials to several criminal defendants charged with the same crimes and whether the court properly submitted the charges against one of the accused to the jury.

11-13-2001 - Opinions

3405 - State v. Martin

In this criminal matter, appellant appeals from his conviction for possession of marijuana, raising the following three issues: (1) whether the search warrant was facially invalid and was not properly supplemented by sworn oral testimony, (2) whether the trial court properly weighed probative value versus prejudicial effect in the admission of prior convictions under Rule 609(a), SCRE, and (3) whether the trial court properly allowed prior bad act evidence.

3406 - State v. Cherry

This case addresses the standard to be used by a trial court in considering a motion for directed verdict in a criminal case and the appropriate jury charge in a circumstantial evidence case.

11-19-2001 - Opinions

3407 - Jones v. Equicredit Corporation of S.C.

This is an action to determine entitlement to insurance proceeds between a mortgagee's servicing agent and a property owner after foreclosure of the insured property.

3408 - Brown v. Stewart

This is a minority shareholder's action alleging misrepresentation and corporate mismanagement.

3409 - Rorrer v. P.J. Club, Inc.

In this action to recover the gambling losses of another brought pursuant to section 32-1-20, the penal nature of the statute did not require that damages be proven by clear and convincing evidence.

3410 - Boone v. Sunbelt Newspapers, Inc

Former sheriff's deputy sued newspaper, alleging it published an article that contained false, misleading, and defamatory statements made about him by a local citizen. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the newspaper, finding the article could not be understood as making false statements with a defamatory meaning about the deputy. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, holding a cause of action for defamation fails when there is an absence of a false statement and defamatory meaning.

3411 - Binkley v. Rabon Creek Watershed Conservation District of Fountain Inn

This is an action to determine the extent and enforceability of an easement for flowage rights over a dam.

3412 - Commerce Center of Greenville v. W. Powers McElveen & Associates, Inc.

This is a construction litigation case. Building owner sued contractor and architect for damages arising from water damages caused by the building's leaking windows. Building owner won a $175,000 jury verdict. The jury assigned contractor responsibilit