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.
4-2-2014 - Opinions
27372 - Lee v. University of South Carolina
The Court reverses and remands, finding the agreement prohibits the University of South Carolina's imposition of an additional seat license fee.
The Court affirmed the award of summary judgment to Respondent, finding that a family member exclusion in an insurance contract did not provide coverage to the minor child of the at-fault driver under Florida law.
27374 - Catawba Indian Nation v. State
We reverse the circuit court's determination that the Tribe's action is precluded by collateral estoppel and/or res judicata. We affirm the circuit court's ruling that the Gambling Cruise Act does not confer upon the Tribe the right to offer video poker and similar electronic play devices on its Reservation as the Act does not alter the statewide ban on video poker.4-9-2014 - Opinions
The Court affirms the trial court's award of attorney's fees and costs to appointed counsel in a criminal case.
27376 - Lord v. D & J Enterprises
In this premises liability case involving a third-party criminal act, Ida Lord ("Lord") appeals the circuit court's order granting summary judgment in favor of D & J Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Cash on the Spot ("D & J"). We reverse and remand for trial as we find the balancing approach adopted in Bass v. Gopal, Inc., 395 S.C. 129, 716 S.E.2d 910 (2011) applies to the facts of the instant case and its application warranted the denial of D & J's motion for summary judgment
27377 - In the Matter of Charles Berger
This is an opinion in which the Court imposed discipline on a lawyer.
27378 - In the Matter of Amelia Lorenz
This opinion disbars Amelia H. Lorenz for misconduct.
The Court affirms the trial court's dismissal of Appellants' claims for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and fraudulent inducement, finding that BB&T owed no duty to Appellants because they were not customers of the bank.
27380 - Dawkins v. Union Hospital
The Court reverses the trial court's determination that a hospital patient was required to comply with the pre-filing requirements for medical malpractice claims found in S.C. Code Ann. § 15-79-125 (Supp. 2012), finding instead that the patient's claim sounds in ordinary negligence and thus did not implicate section 15-79-125.
27381 - Bell v. Progressive Direct Insurance
The Court affirms the court of appeals' decision affirming the circuit court's grant of summary judgment to Respondent because the insurance policy does not contain ambiguous terms, the doctrine of reasonable expectations does not extend coverage beyond the coverage provided by the express terms of the policy, and Petitioner was not engaged in a common-law marriage such that he was entitled to coverage under the policy.4-14-2014 - Opinions
The Court holds that the House of Representatives' decision to sustain the Governor's line item veto did not suspend DHEC's duty to administer the CON program. Therefore, the Court declares that DHEC has a duty to administer and fund the CON program for Fiscal Year 2013-2014 as contemplated by the CON Act.4-23-2014 - Opinions
This Court reverses the Court of Appeals, finding the State failed to properly preserve its argument that the petitioner was not entitled to equitable relief.4-24-2014 - Opinions
27384 - SC Libertarian Party v. SC Election Commission
The Supreme Court, in its orginal jurisdiction, held the Equal Access to the Ballot Act, 2013 S.C. Act No. 61, was effective on June 25, 2013. The Court further held the Act did not require the Libertarian Party to adopt a primary nomination process in order to retain its convention method of nominating candidates.4-30-2014 - Opinions
27385 - In the Interest of Jane Doe
Jane Doe ("Appellant") appeals the family court's order declaring her to be a "vulnerable adult" and in need of protective services pursuant to the South Carolina Omnibus Adult Protection Act. Appellant contends the South Carolina Department of Social Services failed to prove she is a vulnerable adult at substantial risk of neglect due solely to advanced age. Because we find that Appellant did not meet the statutory definition of a vulnerable adult under the Act, we reverse the order of the family court. However, we remand to the family court to conduct a review hearing to assess the current status of Appellant's case.