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.
12-5-2011 - Opinions
In this attorney disciplinary matter, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) filed formal charges based on allegations of misconduct against Respondent. The Hearing Panel of the Commission on Lawyer Conduct (Panel) recommended Respondent be disbarred. The Supreme Court held that disbarment was the appropriate disciplinary sanction.
David Cole appealed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant on Cole's personal injury claims arising out of injuries he sustained in a softball game. The Court affirmed, holding that Cole had assumed the risk of the injuries by engaging in the game of softball. The Court further held that participants of contact sports assume the risk of negligence and recklessness committed within the course of the game by co-participants.12-12-2011 - Opinions
In this appeal, the Court affirms the ALC's finding that Emerson Electric was not entitled to certain income tax deductions and S.C. Code Ann 12-6-2220 is not unconstitutional as applied.
The court affirms the trial court's finding of fraud in a real estate transaction.
The Court affirms the constitutionality of the City of Columbia Zoning Ordinance.
Jose Lozada appeals the circuit court's order denying his petition for declaratory judgment seeking to be removed from the Sex Offender Registry. Lozada argues that the crime to which he pled guilty in Pennsylvania—unlawful restraint—is not a "similar offense" to the crime of kidnapping in South Carolina. He accordingly contends that he should not be required to register as a sex offender for unlawful restraint pursuant to Section 23-3-430(A) of the South Carolina Code (2010). We disagree and affirm.12-12-2011 - Orders
ORDER - Amendments to Rule 416, South Carolina Appellate Court Rules
Pursuant to Article V, § 4, of the South Carolina Constitution, we hereby adopt the Bar's proposed amendments to Rule 416, SCACR, with some further amendments to Rules 10 and 20 of Rule 416, as set forth in the attachment to this Order. The amendments are effective immediately.ORDER - In the Matter of James Stone Craven
By order dated October 19, 2011, the Court granted petitioner's Petition for Reinstatement, subject to certain conditions.ORDER - In the Matter of Dorchester County Magistrate Arthur Tuggle Bryngelson, Jr.
The Office of Disciplinary Counsel has filed a petition asking the Court to place respondent on interim suspension pursuant to Rule 17(b) of the Rules for Judicial Disciplinary Enforcement, Rule 502, SCACR.12-19-2011 - Opinions
Upon remand from the United States Supreme Court, the Court reinstated its initial opinion.
The Court affirmed an order requiring the destruction of seven video machines found to be unlawful gaming devices.
This is a disciplinary opinion in which the Court definitely suspends a lawyer.
This is a disciplinary opinion in which the Court publicly reprimands a lawyer.
This is a disciplinary matter in which the Court disbars an attorney.12-28-2011 - Opinions
In this capital case, we affirm Appellant's guilty plea and sentence.
Background: State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) (Appellant), appealed the circuit court order relieving Jeremy Lane Edwards (Respondent) from the sex offender registration requirements of section 23-3-430 of the South Carolina Code. Respondent was convicted of
This appeal arises out of the Administrative Law Court's affirmance of the denial of medicaid benefits for mental retardation or a related disability. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
Defendant was convicted in the Circuit Court, York County, of first degree burglary, grand larceny, criminal conspiracy, and malicious injury. On grant of defendant's petition for a writ of certiorari, the Supreme Court, Toal, C.J., held that circumstantial evidence presented by the state was insufficient to submit the case to the jury.