Supreme Court Published Opinions - September 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.
9-12-2012 - Opinions
27169 - Whitlock v. Stewart Title
On certified question from the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, the Court determined that where the policy language is ambiguous as to the relevant date for measuring loss in the case of a partial failure of title which is covered by an owner's title insurance policy, such ambiguity requires a construction allowing for the measure of damages most favorable to the insured.
We affirm as modified the ALC's dismissal of Appellant's appeal from a prison disciplinary conviction.9-19-2012 - Opinions
27171 - Hutson v. SC State Ports Authority
In this workers' compensation appeal, the Court reversed and remanded the circuit court's order finding claimant had failed to establish a wage loss under Section 42-9-20 of the South Carolina Code holding that speculative testimony by claimant was not substantial evidence to uphold this finding.9-20-2012 - Opinions
Appellant/Respondent and Respondents/Appellants appeal an order of the circuit court concerning the candidacy of Respondent/Appellant Paul Thurmond for Senate District 41. The circuit court found Thurmond was not exempt from the filing requirement of section 8-13-1356(B) of the South Carolina Code. S.C. Code Ann. § 8-13-1356(B) (Supp. 2011). Thus, Thurmond was disqualified as the Republican nominee for the District 41 seat. The judge, therefore, ordered the Republican Party to conduct a special primary election pursuant to section 7-11-55. S.C. Code Ann. § 7-11-55 (Supp. 2011). The Supreme Court, Toal, C.J., affirmed.9-26-2012 - Opinions
Petitioner contests the post-conviction relief (PCR) court's finding that he received effective assistance of counsel. Petitioner's trial counsel waived Petitioner's right to a jury trial and opted instead for a bench trial as part of the defense strategy. Petitioner asserts that he did not wish to waive this right, and as a result, he received ineffective assistance of counsel.