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.
10-11-2004 - Opinions
3871 - Cannon v. SC Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services
John Cannon appeals from an order requiring him to submit a DNA sample as a condition of his parole. Cannon argues the statute was amended to exclude him from the DNA requirement and forcing him to provide a sample violates the ex post facto clauses of the United States and South Carolina Constitutions.
Don Reno Walton pled guilty to charges of distribution of crack cocaine and distribution of crack cocaine within proximity of a school. He appeals, arguing the circuit court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to accept his guilty plea to distribution within proximity of a school.
3873 - SC Department of Social Services v. Truitt
In this termination of parental rights action, the Court affirms the family court's finding that petitioners abandoned their children.
10-18-2004 - Opinions
In this review of a grant of summary judgment, this court concludes that the undisputed evidence before the master-in-equity supports his establishment of an easement by prescription on the part of SCE&G.
In this family court appeal, Appellant argues the court erred in denying his Rule 60 post-trial motion. This court affrims, finding the family court has subject matter jurisdiction to decide all issues related to a annulled marriage, thus the motion was untimely.
3876 - Hamilton v. R & L Transfer, Inc.
Reverses grant of directed verdict on liability and remands for a new trial upon finding that issues of negligence and proximate cause should, in this case, be decided by the jury.
10-25-2004 - Opinions
3877 - B&A Development v. Georgetown County
In this case, a group of Georgetown County taxpayers brought action in circuit court alleging the County had imposed excessive, unlawful taxes on their real and personal property. We affirm the circuit court dismissal of the case on the grounds the taxpayers had failed to exhaust the administrative remedies prescribed under the South Carolina Revenue Procedures Act.
In this novel and unique factual scenario, the Appellants posit two causes of action: (1) a common law theory of negligence; and (2) a per se theory of negligence. Without identifying all issues encapsulated in the appeal, two novel issues are reviewed: (1) does S. C. Code Ann. Section 20-7-510 (the “Reporting Statute”) give rise to a private cause of action under certain facts and circumstances; and (2) is a treating psychiatrist liable and responsible for failure to warn and/or report the predilection for child molestation of her pediatrician patient when there is no physician/patient relationship of the alleged victim to the psychiatrist.
3880 - Lingard v. Carolina By-Products
In this civil action, the Court reviews the Appellants’ claim that an employment contract existed, which altered their at-will status. Further, the Court analyzes the employee handbook provisions to determine whether Respondent had a reasonable good faith belief that Appellants violated Company Rules Group I so as to authorize immediate discharge disciplinary action.
3881 - Mowrer v. Charleston County Park and Recreation Commission
This appeal concerns the grant of the directed verdict in an inverse condemnation action on the ground that the defendants lacked the authority to commit the acts on which the complaint was based.
3882 - Nelson v. Charleston County Parks & Recreation Commission
In this employment scenario, the Court analyzes the following issues: (1) did the written policies of Charleston County Parks and Recreation Commission alter the Appellant’s at-will status; (2) did the Appellant remain an at-will employee when the Respondent placed him on probation; and (3) did the Respondent breach the alleged contract of probation in terminating the Appellant’s employment?