Supreme Court Published Opinions - April 2008
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.
4-7-2008 - Opinions
In this adoption case, the prospective adoptive parents appeal the family court's decisions: (1) to revoke the biological mother's consent for adoption, finding the consent was involuntary; and (2) to return the child to the biological mother. We affirm, finding there was evidence to support the biological mother's claim of involuntariness and the best interest of the child would then be with the biological mother.4-7-2008 - Orders
ORDER - Amendment to Rule 30 of the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement
The Supreme Court has amended Rule 30 of the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement (RLDE) to add a provision dealing with a suspended or disbarred lawyer’s failure to timely surrender his or her certificate to practice law or to timely file the affidavit required by Rule 30. Further, the order adopting the amendment contains requirements for suspended or disbarred lawyers who have not timely complied with the requirements of Rule 30 prior to this amendment.ORDER - In the Matter of William Robert Witcraft, Jr.
This is an order placing an attorney on interim suspension.4-14-2008 - Opinions
In this case, the Court reverses the PCR court's order granting relief.4-21-2008 - Opinions
This case discusses accomplice liability for felony DUI.
26470 - Stanley v. Atlantic Title Insurance
This is a direct appeal from a master’s award in a claim brought on a title insurance policy. The Court affirmed the master’s decision as modified, clarifying that although the master incorrectly valued the damages to the Respondent’s title, the Appellant’s argument was procedurally barred. The Court specified that in general, title insurance claims should be valued by the difference in the market value of the property with the defect and the market value of the property without the defect.
The Court affirmed the grant of summary judgment to the defendant Breedlove, holding that Breedlove was not liable under an implied warranty of workmanlike service and that Breedlove did not owe a duty to the plaintiff.
26472 - In the Matter of James C. Sexton, Jr.
This is an opinion in which the Court disbarred an attorney.4-21-2008 - Orders
ORDER - Amendments to South Carolina Bar Constitution
The Court has agreed to the Bar's proposed amendments to the Bar Constitution, which: (1) allow notice of meetings to be served electronically; (2) eliminate the positions of Assistant Secretary and Assistant Treasurer; and (3) formally recognize the curr4-28-2008 - Opinions
26473 - Anonymous Taxpayer v. SC Department of Revenue
In this revisited challenge to the change in state tax exemptions for retired state employees, Appellant Anonymous Taxpayer appeals the circuit court's decision to affirm the administrative law court's order denying class certification and dismissing his claims. We affirm.
26474 - Whitworth v. Window World
In this case, the Court reverses the Court of Appeals decision and holds that the employee was not entitled to benefits.
In this class action suit involving damages arising out of allegedly defective synthetic stucco, the appeal and cross-appeals raise multiple substantive and procedural issues regarding certification of the class. We dismiss in part, reverse in part, and remand.
26476 - USAA Property and Casualty Insurance v. Clegg
In this declaratory judgment action, we held USAA Property and Casualty Insurance Company did not have a duty to defend or reimburse its insured against a wrongful death and survival action arising out of an accident caused by his non-resident, emancipated son while driving a "non-owned" automobile.
The defendant in this case has been sentenced to death for murder and wishes to waive his right to further review and appeals. The Court must examine whether he is competent to do so and must determine whether the waiver is knowing and voluntary.