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.
11-4-2002 - Opinions
This is an attorney disciplinary matter in which the Court concluded respondent failed to handle cleint matters diligently and competently, failed to adequately communicate with clients, failed to promptly deliver finds, neglected legal matters, and failed to respond to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.11-12-2002 - Opinions
This case involves the question of whether the unity of title needed to establish an easement by necessity exists where a person owns own track of land in fee simple and an adjoining tract of land with another person as tenants in common.
This appeal the standard of review to be applied when the trial judge rules on a motion to suppress evidence which was seized as a result of a frisk.
This is an attorney disciplinary case where the Court imposed a definite suspension.
In this attorney disciplinary matter, the attorney was disbarred for engaging in financial misconduct in several matters, practicing law while under suspension, and involving himself in financial transactions with clients.
Opinion definately suspending attorney for a variety of violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct including failing to provide competent representation, and knowingly making false statemtns of material fact in connection with a disciplinary investigation.11-18-2002 - Opinions
This case addresses whether a prisoner's five-year probation sentence for a no-parole offense is tolled or discharged upon his successfull completion of the community supervision program required for no-parole offenders by S.C. Code Ann. 24-21-560.11-25-2002 - Opinions
This negligence case involves the issue of the admissibility of industry standards evidence.
This workers' compensation case determines whether a repetitive trauma injury is compensable as an injury by accident.
This workers' compensation case determines when the statute of limitations begins to run in repetitive trauma cases.
Upon remand from the United States Supreme Court, the Court answers the question of whether the prosecutor's evidentiary submissions or closing argument in this capital case placed appellant's future dangerousness at issue.