Blake A. Hewitt, of Bluestein, Thompson Sullivan, LLC, of Columbia and Wallace Jordan, Jr., of Florence, for Appellants. Steve A. Matthews, of Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., of Columbia and D. Malloy McEachin, Jr., of McEachin & McEachin, P.A., of Florence, for Respondents. Attorney General Alan Wilson and Deputy Solicitor General J. Emory Smith, Jr., both of Columbia, for Defendant, State of South Carolina.

The County of Florence challenged the constitutionality of 2014 Act No. 183 and 2015 Act No. 89, which established a special purpose fire district for portions of Florence and Darlington Counties. The circuit court ruled in favor of the County, holding both acts violate Wagener v. Smith, 221 S.C. 438, 71 S.E.2d 1 (1952), and are void under the South Carolina Constitution Article III, § 34, and Article VIII, § 7. Appellants contend the circuit court erred in holding Wagner and the constitutional provisions apply.

Tricia A. Blanchette, of Leesville, for Petitioner. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Valerie Garcia Giovanoli, both of Columbia, for Respondent.

Jerome Buckson was tried by a jury for murder and burglary. Buckson was found guilty of burglary but innocent of murder. The PCR court granted Buckson relief for ineffective assistance of counsel. The court of appeals reversed. Buckson filed a petition for a writ of certiorari for review of the court of appeals' decision, which we granted.

Appellate Defender Taylor D. Gilliam, of Columbia, for Petitioner. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior Assistant Attorney General David A. Spencer, both of Columbia; and Solicitor David Matthew Stumbo, of Greenwood, all for Respondent.

James Clyde Dill Jr. was convicted of manufacturing methamphetamine. Dill appealed his conviction, and the court of appeals affirmed the trial court's decision in State v. Dill, Op. No. 2016-UP-010 (S.C. Ct. App. filed Jan. 13, 2016). Dill filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, which the Court granted. Dill argues: (1) there was no probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant, (2) the trial court should have required the State to disclose the identity of a confidential informant, and (3) he was entitled to a directed verdict.