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.
11-12-2014 - Opinions
This Court granted cross petitions for a writ of certiorari filed by Way and the State. As to Way's appeal, we affirm as modified, and we dismiss the State's petition for a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted.
In this direct appeal, the Court affirms the findings of the Administrative Law Court.
The Court affirms as modified the court of appeals' decision in State v. Robinson, 396 S.C. 577, 722 S.E.2d 820 (Ct. App. 2012), finding that Petitioner failed to carry his burden to show that his own Fourth Amendment rights were violated.
The Court vacates the sentences of petitioners and all other inmates similarly situated and remands their cases for resentencing in light of the United States Supreme Court's opinion in Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012).
This case involves the South Carolina Constitution's requirement that there be a system of free public schools that affords each student the opportunity to receive a minimally adequate education. The trial court found that some children in the Plaintiff Districts were not being provided their mandated educational opportunity because the Defendants failed to fund early childhood education. The Plaintiff Districts and the Defendants cross-appealed. The Court affirms the trial court's decision as modified, finding that student and school achievement in the Plaintiff Districts demonstrate that early childhood intervention programs are not the sole problem contributing to the Defendant's constitutional violation. The Court therefore retains jurisdiction of the case and orders the parties to reappear before the Court within a reasonable time with plans to address the constitutional violation announced today.11-26-2014 - Opinions
In this attorney disciplinary matter, the Court definitely suspended Respondent for a period of two years.