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.
12-6-2004 - Opinions
In this criminal appeal, the court reviews whether the trial judge erred by allowing the State to introduce evidence that appellant was arrested for criminal domestic violence against his wife in October 2001, when appellant was being tried for breaking into the home where his wife was living and assaulting her and others on December 11, 2001.
These combined appeals concern the right to a jury trial in a will contest and the right to have the matter removed from the probate court to the circuit court.
In this criminal appeal, the court analyzes whether the circuit judge erred in allowing evidence of an “incident” involving appellant in Greenville County that occurred one to two hours prior to the acts for which he was charged in Anderson County.
In this domestic relations case, the court analyzes three issues: (1) custody of children; (2) efficacy of preferences of custody of the minor children; and (3) whether the custody award granted de facto custody to the paternal grandparents.
In this medical negligence case, the court submitted the case to the jury on only one cause of action and only one defense. The jury returned a general verdict for the defense. The court affirmed under the two issue rule, finding sufficient evidence to support the negligence cause of action submitted to the jury.
This is a FELA case. The primary issue is whether there was any negligence on the part of CSX Railroad in regard to an injury suffered and sustained by Montgomery on a railroad track line.
In this criminal appeal, the appellant contends the circuit court erred in failing to grant a directed verdict because of a failure of the State to comply with the provisions of S.C. Code Ann. Section 56-5-2953 requiring videotaping from the activation of blue lights through arrest.
Paul Davis Systems, Inc. sought to foreclose on a mechanic's lien against Deepwater of Hilton Head. The trial judge directed Deepwater's property be sold to satisfy the mechanic's lien, but subsequently granted Deepwater's motion for relief from judgment and dismissed Deepwater as a party. We reverse, finding the trial judge erred in (1) granting Deepwater relief from judgment under Rule 60(b) because Deepwater's failure to interpose its contract defense in its answer does not amount to "mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect" warranting relief under Rule 60(b), and (2) ruling on defenses readily available to Deepwater prior to trial.
12-20-2004 - Opinions
Appellant appeals his convictions for possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine and possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine within proximity of a school. He contends the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict given the State failed to produce substantial circumstantial evidence of the intent element.
The court affirms the trial court's grant of summary judgment, agreeing the individual employees of RMI did not act in a grossly negligent manner, neither AMI nor RMI acted with deliberate indifference causing the death of Tracy Pack, and none of the theories advanced to justify a federal civil rights claim have merit.
The court determines a pay raise already in effect when an admittedly compensable accident occurred is, in this case, an exceptional reason for deviating from the normal method of calculating the average weekly wage.
In this appeal, we reverse the circuit court’s finding that an individual charged with DUI was not adequately informed in writing of his implied consent rights before submitting to a breath analysis test.
Guillebeaux appeals from his convictions for distribution of crack cocaine and distribution of crack cocaine near a school. He argues the trial judge erred in failing to grant his new trial motion where there was evidence that a juror knew one of the State's chief witnesses.
In this appeal, the court reviews a determination by the family court that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to modify an alimony agreement between former spouses.
Appellant appeals his conviction for distribution of cocaine. He argues the trial judge erred in refusing to charge the jury the defense of entrapment.
Dorothy Sides and her husband, Arthur, brought this action after Dorothy Sides fell at the Greenville Memorial Hospital. They sued the Greenville Hospital System, as well as the general contractor, Rodgers Builders, Inc., and a subcontractor, F.T. Williams Co., Inc. Mr. and Mrs. Sides appeal from an order granting summary judgment to both the contractor and the subcontractor.