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.
6-2-2003 - Opinions
This case involves the question of whether appellant was a statutory employee of a retail store where his direct employer provided the store with individuals to assemble and set up merchandise on the store's premises.
In this wage dispute, the trial court trebled the jury’s $1,350 award of damages to plaintiff Betty P. O'Neal and ordered Intermedical Hospital of South Carolina to pay O'Neal $8,100 in attorney's fees. We reverse as to the award of treble damages and attorney's fees and we affirm as to the jury charge concerning application of Intermedical's policies.
This case considers whether the trial court improperly admitted statements by the defendant to the police on the basis that the statements contained inadmissible character evidence.
Walsh appeals the trial court's order granting Wood's motion for summary judgment, arguing the provisions of ERISA governing vesting and non-alienability of surviving spouse benefits does not control the disposition of all Walsh's claims.
Chisolm raises two issues on appeal from his convictions for distribution of crack cocaine and distribution of crack cocaine within the proximity of a school: (1) the trial court's failure to suppress drug evidence because the State failed to prove a sufficient chain of custody; and (2) the trial court's denial of his motion for a directed verdict on the proximity charge where the State did not present competent evidence showing he distributed crack cocaine within one-half mile of a school.
6-9-2003 - Opinions
This case involves an appeal from a jury verdict in favor of SCE&G. Cole raised several issues on appeal: (1) the trial court's partial grant of summary judgment to SCE&G based on the Recreational Use Statute; (2) the applicability of a DHEC regulation to the facts of the case; (3) the trial court's assumption of risk jury instruction; and (4) the trial court's limitation on argument concerning SCE&G's recreational site revenues.
In this civil action, the theories analyzed are: breach of contract, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion and fraud. The factual and legal issues have their ideology in a bank loan scenario.
6-16-2003 - Opinions
In this civil action, Flateau and Fielding, employees of the South Carolina Commission for the Blind, appeal the circuit court's dismissal of their tort actions against individual members of the commission's governing board. The court held the complaints of Flateau and Fielding alleged torts committed by the board members while acting within the scope of their official duty. Further, the court ruled that the claims of Flateau and Fielding were governed by the Tort Claims Act. Finally, the court concluded the two-year statute of limitations barred the actions.
In this criminal matter, the appellant appeals his conviction for the murder of his stepfather following a second trial, after the first trial ended in a mistrial upon motion by the State. He contends the discovery of the victim's body after the jury was sworn in the first trial did not constitute manifest necessity to justify a mistrial, and therefore a second trial was barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause.
In this medical malpractice action, physician appeals the trial court's ruling allowing patient's expert to testify regarding the standard of care, and the trial court's failure to give requested jury charge or to grant a directed verdict or new trial.
6-23-2003 - Opinions
Addresses the sufficiency of an indictment to vest subject matter jurisdiction in the trial court and whether defendant waived his right to counsel.
6-30-2003 - Opinions
In this criminal appeal, the court held: (1) a controlled buy may under proper circumstances constitute probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant; and (2) an enhanced sentence may be given under S.C. Code Ann section 44-53-375(C) even though the prior sentence is for a violation of possession with intent to distribute.