Court of Appeals Published Opinions - October 2014
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.
10-1-2014 - Opinions
In this divorce appeal, the court of appeals affirms the family court's denial of alimony to the wife, its decision to require the parties to pay their own attorney's fees, and its admission of certain photographs into evidence. The court of appeals modifies the family court's decision to grant the parties a no-fault divorce, concluding both parties presented sufficient circumstantial evidence of each party's infidelity to grant each party a divorce based on adultery.
Jane Roe, as parent and natural guardian of Judy Roe, James Roe, and Joyce Roe, minor children under the age of eighteen (minor Appellants), (collectively with Roe, Appellants) argues the circuit court erred in granting Michelle Bibby's (Respondent) motion for summary judgment. Appellants argue Respondent had a duty to warn Appellants under the special relationship exception and a premises liability theory.
10-8-2014 - Opinions
Appellant Michael Wilson Pearson challenges his convictions for first degree burglary, armed robbery, grand larceny, kidnapping, and possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime. Pearson argues the State failed to present substantial circumstantial evidence of his involvement in any of the crimes charged and, therefore, the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict. We reverse.
5274 - Duke Energy Corp v. SCDOR
This appeal arises from Duke Energy Corporation's claims to the South Carolina Department of Revenue for corporate income tax refunds totaling $126,240,645, plus interest, for tax years 1978 to 2001. We affirm the denial of Duke Energy's refund claims.
10-15-2014 - Opinions
5275 - Mitul Enterprises v. Beaufort County
Mitual Enterprises, L.P. appeals the Administrative Law Court's decision affirming the imposition of an additional $105,282.48 in property taxes under the omitted property statute, section 12-39-220 of the South Carolina Code (2014). We affirm.
10-22-2014 - Opinions
5219 - Moorhead Construction v. Enterprise Bank
The Respondents sought foreclosure of their mechanic's liens against Enterprise Bank of South Carolina, and the master awarded them money judgments. Enterprise Bank appeals these judgments, arguing the master erred by not ordering foreclosure. We vacate the judgments and remand for foreclosure proceedings. Judge Short concurs and dissents in a separate opinion.