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.
4-5-2010 - Opinions
In this case, the trial court held the City of Newberry could not challenge Newberry Electric Cooperative’s provision of electric service to a retail store on property recently annexed by the City. The court of appeals affirmed, holding the Cooperative had the right to serve the property pursuant to a contract, and the suit was barred by the expiration of the statute of limitations. The Supreme Court reversed, holding the statute of limitations did not begin until the City annexed the property; thus it had not expired before initiation of the suit. The Supreme Court also held that the City had the exclusive right to provide electric service to the property, and a contract for services was not sufficient for the Cooperative to meet the annexation exception in S.C. Code Ann. § 33-49-250.
In this case, the Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals’ denial of Petitioner’s request for post-conviction relief. The Supreme Court held that trial counsel’s performance was not deficient for failing to move to suppress a probation agent’s testimony, and, even assuming deficient performance, Petitioner suffered no prejudice.4-12-2010 - Opinions
In this contract dispute case involving "pull-tab" game machines, this Court granted the petition of Charles Ward and Robby Hodge, d/b/a R&B Amusements for a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision in Ward v. West Oil Co., Inc., 379 S.C. 225, 665 S.E.2d 618 (Ct. App. 2008).
The Court affirmed a decision of the Court of Appeals which reversed an order granting summary judgment.
The South Carolina Attorney General appealed the order of the administrative law court compelling production of numerous documents the Attorney General asserted are privileged, confidential communications. The Supreme Court held: (1) the attorney-client privilege may apply on these facts; (2) the work product doctrine does not apply; (3) the deliberative process is not recognized in South Carolina; and (4) the common interest doctrine is adopted for narrow application in South Carolina. The Court reversed the administrative law court and remanded for further findings in accordance with the opinion.
This is a disciplinary opinion in which the Court indefinitely suspended a lawyer.
This is a disciplinary opinion in which the Court definitely suspended a lawyer.
In this opinion, the Court suspended James Michael Brown, from the practice of law for six months from the date of the opinion.
The Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals.
This is a disciplinary opinion in which the Court indefinitely suspended a lawyer.4-12-2010 - Orders
ORDER - Hendricks v. State
ORDER - Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority v. SC Department of Health and Environmental Control
4-19-2010 - Opinions
Appellant, a minor, was charged with several criminal sexual offenses, but ultimately pled guilty to two counts of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature. The family court ordered him committed to the Department of Juvenile Justice suspended upon probation, and required him to register as a sexual offender. The Supreme Court affirmed the family court’s ordering Appellant to register as a sexual offender.
In this case, the Court found that its previous interpretation of the statute now found at S.C. Code Ann. § 63-3-530(A)(17) violates equal protection.
The Court holds Petitioner failed to appeal the circuit court's holding that Respondent was entitled to immunity under section 15-78-60(6). Also, the court of appeals correctly held that section 15-78-60(21) provided an additional sustaining ground to the circuit court's findings. Lastly, even if all of Petitioner's issues were preserved for review, the deputies would still be immune from suit pursuant to section 15-78-60(21).4-26-2010 - Opinions
This is a disciplinary opinion in which the Court definitely suspended a lawyer from the practice of law.
This is a judicial disciplinary opinion in which the Court imposed a public reprimand.
Friends of the Earth (Appellant) appeals from the order of approval issued by the Public Service Commission (Commission) of the combined application of South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G) to construct and operate an additional two-unit nuclear facility, as well as to revise its rates to reflect the cost of capital applied to the project. We affirm.