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.
7-2-2007 - Opinions
This case involves dismissal of a suit for insufficient service of process.7-2-2007 - Orders
ORDER - In the Matter of Deborah A. Koulpasis
This is an order placing an attorney on interim suspension.ORDER - In the Matter of O. Doyle Martin
This is an order reinstating a lawyer to the practice of law.7-9-2007 - Opinions
In this opinion, the Court publicly reprimands Douglas Schmidt.7-16-2007 - Opinions
The Court held the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s denial of Petitioner’s motion for a directed verdict because Respondent failed to submit any evidence establishing the necessary elements of negligent entrustment.
The Court affirmed the circuit court’s interpretation of S.C. Code Ann. § 30-4-40(a)(13), which is a FOIA statute concerning information to be disclosed during a public employer’s search to fill an employment position.7-18-2007 - Opinions
This is a disciplinary opinion in which the Court definitely suspended an attorney for one year.7-23-2007 - Opinions
This appeal arises out of the trial court’s dismissal of an action to enforce a mechanics’ lien on the basis that the action was not timely filed. We reverse.
This is an attorney disciplinary matter involving multiple instances of misconduct. Ultimately, the Court ordered that Respondent be disbarred from the practice of law.
This is an opinion in which the Court publicly reprimands an attorney for misconduct.
This case involves the issue of whether the trial court properly found respondent was not required to have a license to perform the work requested by appellant.
The Court accepted this case in its original jurisdiction to determine the application and effect of Act No. 387, 2006 S.C. Acts 387, to Sierra Club’s appeal pending before the South Carolina Board of Health and Environmental Control on the effective date of Act 387. The Court declared the Board does not have jurisdiction under Act 387 to hear Sierra Club’s pending appeal, but the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over the appeal.7-23-2007 - Orders
ORDER - Amendments to the South Carolina Appellate Court Rules
7-30-2007 - Opinions
This is a prison grievance matter where the Court reverses the circuit court's finding that the ALJ lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
The Court reversed the Court of Appeals. and held that the individual seeking to challenge a DHEC permit had standing to do so.
This criminal case involves the issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred by upholding the trial court's refusal to suppress evidence found in the vehicle the defendant was driving.