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.
10-2-2013 - Opinions
The Court dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted.10-17-2013 - Opinions
The Court denied Petitioners' request that it declare a proposed tax referendum invalid under the Capital Project Sales Tax Act, sections 4-10-300 to -380 of the South Carolina Code, and enjoin Respondents from placing the proposed referendum on the ballot at the November 5, 2013, county elections.10-23-2013 - Opinions
The consolidated appeals involve a dispute over the Court's holding in Austin v. Stokes-Craven Holding Corp., 387 S.C. 22, 691 S.E.2d 135 (2010) as to Respondent's entitlement to trial fees under the Dealer's Act. We affirm the trial judge's award of trial fees to Respondent and remand this matter to the circuit court to conduct a hearing to determine what amount of appellate and post-appellate fees should be awarded to Respondent as this Court's denial of Respondent's motion pursuant to Rule 222, SCACR did not preclude him from seeking these fees under the Dealer's Act.
The Court vacated a portion of the Court of Appeals' opinion addressing the import of S.C. Code Ann. § 42-9-260 (Supp. 2012).
The Court dismissed the writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals as improvidently granted.
This is a disciplinary opinion in which the Court definitely suspends a lawyer.10-23-2013 - Orders
ORDER - In the Matter of Cynthia E. Collie
Respondent’s license to practice law in this state is suspended until further order of the Court.10-30-2013 - Opinions
The Court reverses Petitioner's conviction for aiding and abetting homicide by child abuse in violation of South Carolina Code section 16-3-85(A)(2) when he was indicted only for homicide by child abuse as a principal, holding that the Court of Appeals improperly applied common law principles of accomplice liability in the context of the homicide by child abuse statute.