Court of Appeals Published Opinions - November 2010
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.
11-3-2010 - Opinions
4757 - Graves v. Horry-Georgetown Technical College
After resigning from her position, Dorothy M. Graves filed suit against her former employer, Horry-Georgetown Technical College (the College), for constructive discharge, and the circuit court directed a verdict in favor of the College. Graves appeals, arguing the directed verdict was improper because the College committed "official acts" that precipitated her discharge and excused her from the requirement that she exhaust her administrative remedies before filing suit. We affirm.
11-5-2010 - Opinions
Waltroric U. Moses appeals his conviction for assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature and sentence pursuant to the Youthful Offender Act. We affirm.
11-10-2010 - Opinions
The Court of Appeals reverses the family court's calculation of the husband's monthly child support obligation as well as its classification of the equity in the parties' home and affirms the family court's decision to require Husband to pay retroactive child support. Because the family court's order lacked the requisite findings for the Court of Appeals to determine the proper amount of child support as well as how the marital estate and the parties' debts should be divided, the Court of Appeals remanded those determinations to the family court.
11-24-2010 - Opinions
Shirley Mae Geer appeals her conviction for possession of crack cocaine. Geer asserts the trial court erred by (1) failing to dismiss the charges against her or to grant a continuance in order to give her time to request and review exculpatory evidence withheld by the State that was favorable to her defense; (2) denying her motion to quash the indictment on the ground of selective prosecution; (3) denying her motion to suppress drug evidence seized as the result of an unreasonable, warrantless, beneath-the-skin search that was unsupported by probable cause; and (4) denying her motion to suppress the drug evidence because the State failed to present a sufficient chain of custody. We affirm.