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.
10-11-2004 - Opinions
This is an attorney disciplinary opinion in which the Court imposed a public reprimand. The attorney's interim suspension was lifted.
The Court held that the master-in equity erred in granting a preliminary injunction because Scratch Golf did not present sufficient evidence to establish that injunctive relief was appropriate. The Court then remanded case to the master to determine whether an attachment was the appropriate way for Scratch Golf to secure a possible judgment.10-11-2004 - Orders
ORDER - In the Matter of H. Ray Ham
Attorney placed on interim suspension and attorney to protect suspended attorney's clients was appointed.ORDER - Amendment to Rule 420(b)(3)
This Amendment to Rule 420(b)(3) changes the language of the Rule from having two members of the USC law school on the Commission to allow membership by a Professor from any law school in the state.10-18-2004 - Opinions
This case involves the trial court's dismissal of the appellants' fraud, public policy, and unconscionability claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), and whether any claims asserted bby the appellants, which relate to the making of the contract or the arbitration clause, must be pursued in arbitration.10-25-2004 - Opinions
This is an attorney disciplinary opinion imposing an indefinite suspension.
This is an attorney disciplinary matter in which the Court imposed an eighteen month definite suspension for misconduct.
This is an attorney disciplinary matter disbarring attorney for misconduct.
The Court held that the amount of punitive damages the jury awarded Petitioner was so excessive that it violates Petitioner's due process rights.
The Court affirmed Appellant's death sentence. Appellant's guilty plea was not a conditional plea, and he was not deprived of his right to a jury trial. Further, the circuit court had subject matter jurisdiction to sentence Appellant to death. Finally, the death penalty was proportionate to Appellant's crime.
This case involves the issue of whether the post-conviction relief court erred by finding counsel ineffecting for promising respondent a specific sentence.