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.
2-6-2013 - Opinions
Petitioner appeals the summary dismissal of his second post-conviction relief application, which alleged recently discovered juror misconduct, on the grounds it was successive, untimely, and failed to prove a newly discovered evidence claim. The Court reverses and remands this matter for an evidentiary hearing.
The Court affirms the ALC's finding that real property acquired by a non-profit entity in March 2008 was subject to 2008 property taxes because the property was subject to taxation as of December 31, 2007.2-13-2013 - Opinions
The Court dismisses the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted.
This is an opinion in which the Court publicly reprimands a lawyer.
This is a disciplinary opinion in which the Court definitely suspends a lawyer.
In this case, the Court answers a certified question by the United States District Court by recognizing the dual persona doctrine as an exception to the exclusivity provision of the Workers Compensation Act.
In this appeal, the Court reverses Appellant's conviction and remands for a new trial.
The Court dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted.2-27-2013 - Opinions
In this case, the Court determines the scope of an arbitration provision which seeks to cover all claims arising out of relating to the contract for employment. The Court finds the employee's claims bear a significant relationship to the employment contract and are thus within the scope of the broad arbitration agreement. Therefore, the Court reverses the trial court and holds that all of the employee's causes of action must be arbitrated.
Appellant appealed his conviction and death sentence for murder and armed robbery.
EnerSys Delaware appeals from the denial of its motion to disqualify opposing counsel based on his previous attorney-client relationship with EnerSys. The Court holds the denial of a motion to disqualify an attorney is interlocutory and dismisses the appeal.
The Court vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals and reversed the decision of the circuit court refusing to dismiss respondent's complaint.
Appellant contended that the penalty portion of section 56-5-1210 of the South Carolina Code constituted cruel and unusual punishment, and thus, violated the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.