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.
2-8-2023 - Opinions
This case involves promises made and broken to homeowners by a developer and its affiliated entities. Following a trial, the jury awarded verdicts to the homeowners, but the court of appeals reversed. We reinstate the jury's verdict; affirming in part and reversing in part.2-15-2023 - Opinions
In this case, the parties have filed cross petitions for writs of certiorari challenging the ruling of the post-conviction relief (PCR) court granting Inman PCR. The State challenges the ruling of the PCR court granting Inman relief based on its determination that Hurst v. Florida, 577 U.S. 92 (2016) renders S.C. Code Ann. § 16-3-20(B) (2015) unconstitutional. As we have held numerous times previously, we recently held in State v. Jenkins, 436 S.C. 362, 872 S.E.2d 620 (2022) that section 16-3-20(B) is constitutional. We reiterate that holding here; section 16-3-20(B) is constitutional. Therefore, we reverse the PCR court as to that issue. Inman challenges the PCR court’s failure to rule on his remaining issues in violation of S.C. Code Ann. § 17-27-80 (2014). Because the PCR court’s order failed to comply with section 17-27-80, we remand the case for an order that complies with the statute as to Inman’s remaining issues.