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.
9-7-2010 - Opinions
We affirm in part and reverse in part a circuit court's order granting in part both parties' cross motions for summary judgment, involving an action filed by ambulatory surgery centers and their trade association challenging the revised schedule for maximum allowable payments to medical providers approved by the Workers' Compensation Commission.
In this case, the Court held it is the unauthorized practice of law for a non-lawyer to represent a business as prosecutor of a criminal misdemeanor charge, other than a traffic offense, in magistrate's court.
In this case, the Court granted a writ of certiorari to review the court of appeals' decision in State v. Rivera, Op. No. 2008-UP-187 (S.C. Ct. App. filed March 18, 2008) that held Respondent was not entitled to a jury charge on involuntary manslaughter. This Court affirms, holding the record lacks any evidence to support Respondent’s argument he was lawfully armed, therefore he was not entitled to a jury charge on involuntary manslaughter.9-13-2010 - Opinions
Following a single vehicle accident, Respondents Sonya L. Watson and the Estate of Patricia Carter filed a products liability suit against Appellants. A jury found against Appellant Ford Motor Company and awarded Respondents $18 million in compensatory damages. On appeal, Ford argues that the trial court erred in several respects. We hold that the trial court erred in qualifying a purported cruise control expert, in admitting certain testimony, and in admitting evidence of similar incidents. Accordingly, we reverse the jury’s verdict against Ford.
In this attorney disciplinary matter, Respondent was accused under Rule 7(a), RLDE, Rule 413 SCACR of having sexual relations with the wife of one of his clients, during the period of time in which he was representing the husband. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel alleged, in formal charges, that this extramarital relationship created an impermissible conflict of interest between Respondent and his client under 1.7, SCRPC, Rule 407, SCACR. Following a hearing, the Hearing Panel of the Commission of Lawyer Conduct dismissed the Rule 1.7 charge. We disagree with the Panel’s determination, and hereby admonish Respondent for his conduct.
The Court addresses whether actions seeking reimbursement from the Second Injury Fund are subject to the general ten-year statute of limitations.9-20-2010 - Opinions
In this disciplinary matter, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) brought formal charges against Respondent Eric Reed Martin. The Court ordered a public reprimand.9-27-2010 - Orders
ORDER - In the Matter of Christopher Blakeslee Roberts