Supreme Court Seal
Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
Judicial Department
Supreme Court Published Opinions - June 2019

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.


6-5-2019 - Orders

6-5-2019
ORDER - In the Matter of Howard B. Hammer, Petitioner.
6-12-2019 - Opinions

27892 - Mt. Hawley Insurance Company v. Contravest Construction

In answering a certified question from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding an insurance bad faith claim, the Court holds denying liability or asserting good faith in the answer does not, standing alone, place a privileged communication "at issue" in the case so as to waive the attorney-client privilege.

27893 - State v. Williams

The Court affirms the court of appeals' decision as modified, finding the trial court properly refused to charge the jury on the lesser-included offense of assault and battery in the first degree; and additionally correctly charged the jury on the doctrine of transferred intent.

6-19-2019 - Opinions

27894 - State v. Andrews

This Court Affirms as Modified the Court of Appeals' decision in State v. Andrews, 424 S.C. 304, 818 S.E.2d 227 (Ct. App. 2018).

27895 - State v. Williams

In this appeal from a conviction for murder, we hold the trial court properly refused to charge the law of self-defense. The defendant shot and killed the victim with an unlawfully-possessed pistol the defendant intentionally brought to an illegal drug transaction. We find the defendant was at fault in bringing on the violence. We affirm.

27896 - Harrison v. Owen Steel Company

The Court reviews the court of appeals' published opinion. Harrison v. Owen Steel Co., Inc., 422 S.C. 132, 810 S.E.2d 433 (Ct. App. 2018).

27897 - Johnson v. Roberts

In this medical malpractice case concerning the statute of repose, the Court holds that Respondent's argument is preserved and that there is evidence to survive summary judgment that Petitioners were negligent during the repose period.