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.
1-3-2008 - Opinions
In this workers' compensation case Toney Jones argues the Appellate Panel of the Workers' Compensation Commission improperly conlcuded his employer established the defense of intoxication. We affirm.
1-10-2008 - Opinions
Isiah James, Jr. appeals from a circuit court order granting summary judgment to the South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services on James' claims that (1) the Department improperly denied him parole and (2) the Department's review procedure constituted an ex post facto violation.
In this workers' compensation action, employee appeals the circuit court's order affirming in part the order of the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission and remanding two matters to the Commission for further consideration. We dismiss the appeal as an interlocutory order of the circuit court which is not immediately appealable.
This court reverses an order setting aside a tax sale. The tax sale was originally set aside by the master because the tax collector failed to notify the deceased property owner’s children about the tax sale. This was in error as notification was not necessary because the children were divested of their interest in the property by a prior probate court order.
1-16-2008 - Opinions
In this criminal matter, the appellant appeals his conviction for burglary in the first degree asserting the trial judge erred in denying his motion for directed verdict because the building did not meet the statutory definition of a dwelling inasmuch as no one had stayed overnight in the residence for at least three years.
In this felony driving under the influence case, the Appellant posits two issues. The trial court erred: (1) in failing to grant a directed verdict of acquittal; and (2) in his charge to the jury regarding proximate cause.
Randy Silver (Homeowner) brought an action against Aabstract Pools and Spas, Inc. (Contractor) for breach of contract and conversion. Contractor asserted affirmative defenses and counterclaimed for breach of contract and attorneys’ fees. With the consent of the parties, the circuit court referred the matter to the Master-in-Equity who concluded the payment provisions of the contract were ambiguous. The master ruled in favor of Homeowner on the breach of contract claim and awarded him compensatory damages of $30,000. Contractor appeals. We reverse and remand.
In this criminal case, the appellate court considers whether the circuit court erred by accepting a guilty plea in which Appellant waived both the right to appeal his motion regarding the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act and the right to file for post-conviction relief.
Lowcountry Open Land Trust (Buyer) brought this declaratory judgment action alleging Charleston Southern University improperly terminated a contract for Buyer to acquire real property from the University. The trial court ruled in favor of Buyer, and the University appeals.
1-17-2008 - Opinions
The Court of Appeals affirmed the Master-in-Equity's finding that the granddaughter was not entitled to recover underinsured motorist benefits under her grandfather's insurance policies with State Farm Automobile Insurance Company. The grandfather argued the Master failed to broadly construe the applicable clauses of the insurance policies and, therefore, incorrectly found the granddaughter did not reside primarily with the grandfather. The Court of Appeals disagreed, holding the Master properly construed the policy language. The Court of Appeals additionally held there was ample evidence to support the finding that the granddaughter did not reside primarily with her grandfather, thus making a denial of underinsured motorist benefits proper.
Friends of McLeod, Inc. appeals the circuit court's order, arguing the court erred in ruling: (1) its appeal from the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) was not timely, (2) it does not have standing to challenge the BZA's determination, and (3) the BZA did not commit an abuse of discretion in arbitrarily approving the request for a special exception.