Supreme Court Published Opinions - October 2012
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.
10-3-2012 - Opinions
Dismissed as Improvidently Granted
27175 - Carolina Park Associates v. Marino
Appellants failed to state a claim for imposition of a constructive trust on Respondents’ property because the facts alleged did not present circumstances in which it would be inequitable for Respondents to retain the property. Therefore, cancellation of the lis pendens was also proper.
Petitioner contends the State's impeachment of his defense witness with remote manslaughter convictions violated Rules 404 and 609, SCRE. We agree the use of the remote manslaughter convictions was error, but find the error was harmless in this case.10-10-2012 - Opinions
The Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals and found Petitioner had not violated the federal Stored Communications Act (SCA) by hacking into Respondent's e-mail account because the e-mails were not being held in "electronic storage" as defined by the SCA.
27178 - In the Matter of Patrick James Thomas Kelley
This is an opinion publicly reprimanding a lawyer.
27179 - In the Matter of Eleazer R. Carter
The Court issued a public reprimand in this attorney discipline matter.
Appellant contended the trial court's jury instruction constituted reversible error. The Supreme Court, Toal, C.J., found that the trial court issued an improper jury instruction, but that the instruction, as a whole, properly conveyed the law to the jury. Additionally, the Court held that overwhelming evidence of Appellant's guilt rendered any error by the trial court harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.10-17-2012 - Opinions
27181 - Historic Charleston v. City of Charleston
The Court reversed an order finding a zoning ordinance was invalid spot zoning.