Supreme Court Seal
Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
Judicial Department
Court of Appeals Published Opinions - November 2008

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.

11-4-2008 - Opinions

4454 - Paschal v. Price

This is across-appeal of a workers' compensation award. The employer, Richard Price, and the S.C. Uninsured Employer's Fund, contend the claimant, Ernest Lee Paschal, was an independent contractor and therefore not eligible to receive workers' compensation benefits. They also challenge the benefits awarded and contend they were entitled to a new hearing before a different commissioner because of remarks by Paschal's attorney. In his cross-appeal, Paschal argues the circuit court should have dismissed Price's appeal of the appellate panel's order as untimely.

11-14-2008 - Opinions

4455 - Gauld v. O’Shaugnessy Realty

In this civil action, did the circuit court err in granting summary judgment to Respondents after determining Appellant, who purchased a home not knowing of a nearby prospective road project, failed to prove damages?

4456 - Brailsford v. Brailsford

Donna Brailsford, the wife of William Brailsford and Personal Representative of his estate, appeals the trial court’s order (1) dismissing a fraud cause of action pursuant to Ferguson v. Charleston Lincoln Mercury, Inc., 344 S.C. 502, 544 S.E.2d 285 (Ct. App. 2001), and (2) limiting the remaining causes of action insofar as they cannot be supported by conduct or facts relating to fraud to the extent such fraud pertains to William Brailsford. Donna Brailsford also argues the trial court’s orders issued after facts giving rise to a recusal motion should be vacated and the trial judge erred by issuing any orders after recusing himself in open court. We Affirm.

11-18-2008 - Opinions

4457 - Pelzer v. State

Following a grant of postconviction relief (PCR), the State petitioned for and received a writ of certiorari. The State now argues the PCR court erred in finding Ricky C. Pelzer’s plea counsel was ineffective and in granting Pelzer relief from one part of a negotiated guilty plea but leaving the rest of the plea intact. We reverse.

11-20-2008 - Opinions

4458 - McClurg v. Deaton

In this negligence action arising from an automobile accident, Harrell Wayne Deaton and New Prime, Inc. appeal from an order of the trial court denying motions of both parties to set aside a default judgment in favor of Anne F. and Steve McClurg.

4459 - Timmons v. Starkey

Elizabeth Timmons (Timmons) filed this action against Jane Starkey (Starkey) and UBS Financial Services, Inc. (UBS), alleging that Starkey, a UBS employee, converted funds in Timmons’ investment account to her own use. UBS appeals the circuit court’s denial of its motion to compel arbitration. The Court of Appeals reversed on the ground that the arbitration clause in the parties’ contract encompassed Timmons’ claims against UBS.

4460 - Pocisk v. Sea Coast Construction of Beaufort

Sea Coast Construction Corporation and Johnny Payne apppeal the trial court's order granting George and Ann Pocisk Rule 60 (b), SCRCP, relief from judgment folowing the Federal District Court's determination that the underlying settlement agreement was invalid as a matter of law.

11-25-2008 - Opinions

4461 - Original Blue Ribbon Taxi v. SCDMV

In this appeal from the Administrative Law Court, Appellant avers the ALC judge erred by reversing the decision of the DMV hearing officer upholding the denial of Respondent’s application for renewal as a self-insurer. The case hinges on the proper interpretation of S.C. Code § 56-9-60 in relation to the statutory minimum liability coverage requirements.

4462 - Richland County v. Carolina Chloride

Carolina Chloride, Inc. appeals a directed verdict involving the zoning of real property in Richland County. We now withdraw our previous opinion from publication and substitute this revised opinion. [1] We affirm as modified in part, and reverse and remand in part. [1] After filing the petition for rehearing, the parties requested this court delay its decision on the petition for the last few months.