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.
9-7-2016 - Opinions
Meenaxi, Inc. d/b/a Corner Mart (Appellant) appeals the administrative law court's (ALC's) order affirming the South Carolina Department of Revenue's (the Department's) revocation of an off premises beer and wine permit that allowed alcohol to be sold at the Corner Mart. On appeal, Appellant argues (1) the ALC erred in determining the Department brought and pursued this action against the proper parties; (2) the Department's failure to bring and pursue this case against the proper parties violated the due process rights of Malkesh Patel?the owner of Meenaxi, Inc. and the Corner Mart; (3) the ALC erred in revoking Appellant's permit pursuant to subsection 61-4-580(5) of the South Carolina Code (2009); (4) the ALC's factual findings and legal conclusions were based upon erroneously admitted testimony and evidence; and (5) the ALC abused its discretion and committed an error of law by determining that revocation of the permit was the appropriate penalty. Affirmed.
9-14-2016 - Opinions
In this breach of contract action seeking damages for failure to pay the balance due on a subcontract, Appellant/Respondent PC Construction of Greenwood, Inc. (PC) appeals the circuit court's denial of its Rule 59(e), SCRCP, motion to alter or amend, arguing the court erred in finding PC could not recover delay damages from Respondent/Appellant Miller Construction Company (Miller Construction). PC further argues the circuit court failed to consider the overwhelming evidence that Miller Construction caused delays on the project. On cross-appeal, Miller Construction argues the court erred in denying it pre-judgment interest on its recovery for breach of contract. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand the question of prejudgment interest to the circuit court.
9-28-2016 - Opinions
In this civil matter, Tamko Building Products, Inc. (Tamko) appeals the circuit court's denial of its motion to dismiss One Belle Hall Property Owners Association, Inc. (the Association) and Brandy Ramey's (collectively "Respondents") claims and compel them to arbitration. Tamko argues the court erred in finding the arbitration clause located in its limited warranty was unconscionable and unenforceable. We reverse.
A Lexington County jury convicted David A. Land of three counts of sexual exploitation of a minor, second degree. Land appeals his convictions, arguing the circuit court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict because the State failed to provide sufficient proof from which a reasonable jury could conclude that he knowingly distributed or exchanged pictures or videos of minors engaged in sexual acts as prohibited by section 16-15-405(A) of the South Carolina Code (2015). We affirm.
Otha Delaney appeals the trial court's grant of First Financial of Charleston, Inc.'s motion to dismiss his class action complaint for damages and equitable relief under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), alleging the court erred in (1) dismissing the complaint as time-barred by applying the incorrect statute of limitations, and (2) determining the date the statute of limitations began to run. We affirm.
The State appeals the circuit court's dismissal of its case against Steven Walters, Jr. for driving under the influence (DUI), second offense. The State argues the circuit court erred in finding: (1) the video recording of the incident site failed to comply with the requirements of section 56-5-2953(A) of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2015); and (2) section 56-5-2953(B) of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2015) was not applicable.
In this dispute arising out of a construction project, Rose Electric, Inc. (Rose Electric) appeals the trial court's order finding for Southern Produce, Inc. (Southern) and S2P, LLC, (S2P) (collectively Respondents), arguing the trial court erred in (1) finding an express contract barred its recovery under the theory of quantum meruit; (2) finding Rose Electric did not establish the elements of its quantum meruit claim; (3) and failing to award Rose Electric damages. We reverse and remand.