Supreme Court Seal
Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
Judicial Branch
Supreme Court - Roster of Cases for Hearing

   
The summary below each case is prepared to offer lawyers and the public a general overview of what issues are included in a case which will be argued. The summary is not a limit on what issues a party to a case may present at oral argument.
Tuesday, January 12, 2021
WebEx
 10:00 a.m. (Time Limits: 15-15-5)  
2019-002052   Palmetto Construction Group, LLC, Respondent, v. Restoration Specialists, LLC, Reuben Mark Ward, and Lynnette Pennington Ward, Petitioners.

A. Bright Ariail, of Law Office of A. Bright Ariail, LLC of Charleston, for Petitioners. Andrew K. Epting, Jr. and Jaan Gunnar Rannik, both of Epting & Rannik, LLC, of Charleston, for Respondent.

The Court granted a writ of certiorari to review the court of appeals' decision in Palmetto Construction Group, LLC v. Restoration Specialists, LLC, 428 S.C. 261, 834 S.E.2d 204 (Ct. App. 2019). The Court will determine (1) whether the master-in-equity's order was immediately appealable and (2) whether Restoration Specialists waived its right to arbitration.

 11:20 a.m. (Time Limits: 15-15-5)  
2019-002074   Lucille H. Ray, Respondent, v. City of Rock Hill, South Carolina, a Municipal Corporation, and South Carolina Department of Transportation, an agency of the State of South Carolina, Defendants, Of which City of Rock Hill is the Petitioner.

W. Mark White and Jeremy D. Melville, both of Spencer & Spencer, P.A., of Rock Hill, for Petitioner. Richard B. Fennell, of James, McElroy & Diehl, P.A., of Charlotte, North Carolina, for Respondent.

The Court granted a writ of certiorari to review the court of appeals' decision in Ray v. City of Rock Hill, 428 S.C. 358, 834 S.E.2d 464 (Ct. App. 2019). The Court will determine whether the court of appeals erred in holding a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the City of Rock Hill engaged in an affirmative, positive, and aggressive act sufficient to support Respondent's inverse condemnation claim.

Wednesday, January 13, 2021
WebEx
 10:00 a.m. (Time Limits: 15-15-5)  
2020-000092   Jimmy A. Richardson, II, Solicitor for the 15th Judicial Circuit, on behalf of the 15th Circuit Drug Enforcement Unit, Appellant, v. Twenty Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy-One and 00/100 Dollars ($20,771.00), U.S. Currency and Travis Green, Respondents.

James Richard Battle, II of Battle Law Firm, LLC of Conway, for Appellant. Benjamin Alexander Hyman, of The Hyman Law Group, PA, of Conway, Daniel L. Alban and Robert Frommer, both of Institute for Justice, of Arlington, Virginia, for Respondents. Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General W. Jeffrey Young, Solicitor General Robert D. Cook, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Harley Kirkland and Assistant Attorney General Leon David Leggett, III, all of Columbia, for Amicus Curiae Attorney General Alan Wilson. Susan K. Dunn and Shirene C. Hansotia, both of Charleston, Jeremiah Williams and Jonathan Ference-Burke, both of Ropes & Gray, LLP of Washington, DC, Caitlin Giaimo, of Ropes & Gray, LLP of New York, Olga Akselrod, Leah Watson and Amreeta Susy Mathai, all of American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of New York, for Amici Curiae American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, American Civil Liberties Union of South Carolina Foundation, National Federation of Independent Business, South Carolina Appleseed Legal Justice Center, South Carolina for Criminal Justice Reform, Root & Rebound and Project Not A Statistic. Jeffery P. Dunlaevy, of Dunlaevy Law Firm, of Greenville, Robert Alt and Jay Carson, both of Columbus, Ohio, for Amicus Curiae The Buckeye Institute and Americans for Prosperity Foundation- South Carolina.

Appellant challenges an order of the circuit court finding South Carolina's forfeiture statutes (S.C. Code Ann. ยงยง 44-53-520 and -530) are unconstitutional because (1) they violate the prohibition on excessive fines in the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 15 of the South Carolina Constitution, and (2) they violate due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and article I, section 3 of the South Carolina Constitution, by placing a burden on the property owner to prove his or her innocence, incentivizing forfeiture officials to pursue forfeiture actions, and failing to provide for judicial review or authorization prior to or subsequent to the seizure.

 11:20 a.m. (Time Limits: 15-15-5)  
2020-000612   Home Builders Association of South Carolina, Home Builders Association of York County, Soni Construction, Inc., Shea Investment Fund 2, LLC, and Shea Investment Fund 3, LLC, Appellants, v. State of South Carolina and York County, Respondents.

Keith M. Babcock and Ariail E. King, both of Lewis Babcock, of Columbia, for Appellants. Attorney General Alan Wilson, Solicitor General Robert D. Cook and Deputy Solicitor General J. Emory Smith, Jr., all of Columbia and Sarah P. Spruill, of Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, of Greenville, for Respondents.

This appeal involves a constitutional challenge to the South Carolina Development Impact Fee.