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.
5-5-2003 - Opinions
In a medical malpractice case, even the discovery rule does not allow an additional defendant to be added after the expiration of the statute of limitations.
The cases involves whether a wife's alimony should be increased or decreased due to a change in circumstances.
Finds subject matter jurisdiction lacking where a defendant waived presentment and pled guilty to offense not contained in true-billed indictment and which was not a lesser included of the indicted charge.
Heirs of Smashum appeal the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Fender, arguing that the parties were tenants in common and that Fender failed to establish by his actions that he ousted the heirs.
In this criminal case, the court analyzes subject matter jurisdiction under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (IAD) and reviews the law in regard to a mistrial after the admission of alleged prejudicial testimony.
5-14-2003 - Opinions
This case involves the question of whether South Carolina had jurisdiction to prosecute a defendant for conspiracy to traffic cocaine and trafficking in cocaine when the alleged criminal conduct took place outside of the state.
5-27-2003 - Opinions
This civil action determined the existence of a prescriptive easement based upon a claim of right. The court ruled that the prerequisites needed to establish a right by presciption are: (1) the continued and uninterrupted use or enjoyment of the right for the full period of twenty years, (2) the idenity of the thing enjoyed, and (3) the use or enjoyment was adverse or under claim of right.
In this workers' compensation action, Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation appeals the award of medical expenses and workers' compensation benefits to Marshall Eaddy for a hernia injury arguing the circuit court erred in (1) finding Eaddy sustained a compensable injury, (2) finding Eaddy was totally and permanently disabled, (3) failing to find Smurfit-Stone was entitled to a credit for accident and sickness benefits, as well as previous workers' compensation payments, and (4) affirming the full commission's order because the order was made in violation of the South Carolina Administrative Procedures Act.
The case involves whether a third-party assignment is valid against an insurance company.