Neil D. Wright, of Myrtle Beach, for appellant. Linda Weeks Gangi, of Conway, for respondents.

This appeal of a declaratory judgment action involves a determination of whether garage coverage and commercial general liability insurance policies issued to the defendants in an underlying action precluded Appellant's recovery under the decedant's underinsured liability coverage.

Michael R. Ellisor, of Lexington, for appellant-respondent. J. Mark Taylor and C. Vance Stricklin, Jr., both of Moore, Taylor & Thomas, of West Columbia; and Cynthia Barrier Castengera, of Newland, NC, for respondent-appellant.

In this domestic cross-appeal Green argues the trial court erred in reducing child support and alimony upon Penny’s change in employment. Penny counters claiming the trial court erred by not further decreasing or terminating alimony, imputing income, not awarding his attorney’s fees, and awarding Green’s attorney’s fees.

S. Allan Hill, of Temple, Mann, Briggs & Hill, of Greenville, or appellant-respondent. William B. Swent, of Leatherwood, Walker, Todd & Mann, of Greenville, for respondent-appellant.

This domestic cross-appeal involves whether the family court erred by ruling the Husband breached a settlement agreement, where the settlement agreement was subsequently merged into a court order. Additionally, the case involves whether the family court erred by imputing income to Husband for purposes of an alimony award and whether parties can orally modify a settlement agreement that has been merged into a court order, notwithstanding language in the order stating it can only be modified in writing or by the court.

Assistant Appellate Defender Aileen P. Clare, of SC Office of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for appellant. Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles H. Richardson and Assistant Attorney General W. Rutledge Martin, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Ralph E. Hoisington, of Charleston, for respondent.

The issue in this criminal appeal is whether the trial court erred in seating a juror, whom it found to have been struck in violation of Batson v. Kentucky, rather than ordering the process of selecting the jury to start de novo.

James H. Moss and H. Fred Kuhn, Jr., both of Moss, Kuhn & Fleming, of Beaufort, for appellant. Kevin M. Barth, of Harwell, Ballenger, Barth & Hoefer, of Florence; R. Davis Howser and Andrew E. Haseldon, both of Howser, Newman & Besley, of Columbia, for respondent.

This attorney malpractice case involves issues of conflict of interest, business valuation, and failure to call witnesses. Additionally, the Appellant claims the circuit court erred by excluding specific evidence.

John S. Keffer, of Young & Associates, of Sumter, for appellants-respondents. Kristi F. Curtis, of Bryan, Bahnmuller, Goldman, & McElveen, of Sumter, for respondents-appellants.

This cross-appeal involves whether the special referee correctly ordered, pursuant to restrictive covenants of the neighborhood, a homebuilder was not required to remove a wing of his house but was required to remove a garage. Additionally, the case involves interpretation of a consent order.

David B. Summer, Jr., and Faye A. Flowers, both of Parker, Poe, Adams, & Bernstein, of Columbia, for appellants. Douglas Jennings, Jr., of Jennings & Harris, of Bennettsville; Michael A. Molony and Stephen L. Brown, both of Young, Clement, Rivers & Tisdale, of Charleston; and E. Katherine Wells, of Columbia, for respondents.

Marlboro Park Hospital appeals DHEC’s grant of a certificate of need to a proposed ambulatory surgery center in the area the hospital mainly serves, primarily arguing that DHEC’s board and the circuit court failed to apply the appropriate “substantial evidence” standard of review to the administrative law judge division’s order, and that substantial evidence existed to support the order.

Desa A. Ballard, of West Columbia; and S. Murry Kinard, of Lexington, for appellants. Thomas H. Pope, III, and W. Chad Jenkins, both of Pope & Hudgens, of Newberry; and S. Jahue Moore, of Moore, Taylor & Thomas, of West Columbia, for respondent.

This appeal involves a challenge to a person’s capacity to revoke her will and durable power of attorney, and then execute a new will and durable power of attorney. Additionally, it considers the propriety of an award of attorney fees to the prevailing attorney-in-fact.

Assistant Appellate Defender Robert M. Dudek, of SC Office of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for appellant. Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh and Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Cecil Kelley Jackson, of Sumter, for respondent.

This appeal concerns a challenge to the trial court's exclusion of information contained in an autopsy report, as well as a claim that the solicitor's closing argument argued facts not in evidence and denied the defendant a fair trial.

Francis T. Draine, of Columbia, for appellants. Justin O'Toole Lucey, of Mt. Pleasant, for respondents.

In this civil action, the Court analyzes the issue of multiple agreements merging into a final agreement encompassing a lease. The additional issues of justification for termination of a lease and the efficacy of a personal guarantee are reviewed.

Stephen L. Brown, of Young, Clement, Rivers & Tisdale, of Charleston, for appellant. Steven L. Smith and Wm. Mark Koontz, both of Smith, Collins & Newton, of Charleston, for respondents.

In this appeal from a jury verdict involving the construction of a home, the Appellant argues the trial court erred in: (1) allowing Respondents to recover “stigma” damages; (2) submitting to the jury a cause of action for breach of the implied warranty of habitability; (3) denying Appellant’s motions for a directed verdict on Respondents’ claim for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; (4) admitting testimony concerning previous lawsuits against Appellant; and (5) admitting information about insurance related work performed by Appellant’s expert witness.

H. Michael Spivey, of Mauldin, for appellant. Phillip K. Sinclair, of Spartanburg, for respondents.

Respondents brought this action against Stewart to enforce restrictive covenants prohibiting the commercial use of residential property. The master-in-equity found Stewart’s use of the property for business purposes violated the restrictive covenants, and Stewart appeals.

Matthew A. Henderson and Joshua M. Henderson, both of Henderson Brandt & Vieth, of Spartanburg, for appellant. Kenneth C. Anthony, Jr., of Spartanburg, for respondent.

This appeal concerns the trial court’s valuation of a 50% equity interest in a corporation.

Charles E. Carpenter, Jr., and S. Elizabeth Brosnan, both of Richardson, Plowden, Carpenter & Robinson; M. Elizabeth Crum and Robert W. Dibble, Jr., both of McNair Law Firm, all of Columbia, for appellants-Respondents. Hamilton Osborne, Jr., and James Y. Becker, both of Haynsworth, Sinkler & Boyd, of Columbia, for respondent-appellant.

This is a cross-appeal from a jury verdict arising from an unfair trade practices dispute between two competing providers of magnetic resonance imaging services. The primary appellant, MedQuest Associates argues on appeal that, for various reasons, InMed should not have been allowed to recover under the Unfair Trade Practices Act. InMed, the secondary appellant, claims entitlement to treble damages and requests a remand on the issue of attorney fees.

Gilbert Scott Bagnell, of Columbia, for appellants. J. Layne Birdsong and James B. Richardson, Jr., both of Richardson & Birdsong; G. Robin Alley and W. Joseph Isaacs, both of Isaacs & Alley, all of Columbia, for respondents.

In this civil action, the Court construes a deed of distribution as juxtaposed to a deed of conveyance containing no reservation in the granting or habendum clauses.

Legal Counsel Tommy Evans, Jr., Legal Counsel J. Benjamin Aplin Deputy and Director for Legal Services Teresa A. Knox, all of S.C. Department of Probation, Parole & Pardon Services, of Columbia, for respondent. J. Stephen Welch, of Greenwood, for appellant.

In this probation revocation case, the Appellant contends the trial judge erred in: (1) not requiring the State to produce Rule 5 information and Brady material prior to the hearing; (2) discussing a reduced sentence if Appellant would release any § 1983 claims he may have; (3) refusing to consider affidavits or other items presented under Rule 28, SCRCrimP; and (4) ruling Appellant did not meet his burden of proof for the award of a new trial under Rule 29, SCRCrimP.

Robert W. Achurch, III, and Mary Bass Lohr, both of Howell, Gibson & Hughes, of Beaufort, for appellants. Coleman Hookaylo, Jr., of Hilton Head Island, for respondent.

In this workers’ compensation case, the Court reviews the issue of jurisdiction of the Workers’ Compensation Commission in a mental-mental award scenario.

Marjorie T. Simmons, of Bellingham, WA; and Rodney F. Pillsbury, of Greenville, for appellants. James Theodore Gentry, of Greenville; and Grady L. Patterson, III, of Columbia, for respondents.

In this civil action, the Court analyzes a multiplicity of theories relating to the liability of an insurance company and a bank.

Randall Scott Hiller, of Greenville, for appellants. Mason A. Summers, of Columbia, for respondent.

The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control brought this action for an order declaring Paris Mountain Utilities, Inc., and its officers in criminal and civil contempt for violating a prior court order arising from their failure to properly operate and maintain a water and sewer treatment plant. Appellants, Joe and David Hiller, officers of the corporation, appeal from a circuit court order piercing the corporate veil of Paris Mountain Utilities, Inc., so as to hold them personally liable for the willful and continued violation of the prior order in the action.

Jack B. Swerling, of Columbia, for appellant. Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles H. Richardson and Assistant Attorney General David A. Spencer, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Harold W. Gowdy, III, of Spartanburg, for respondent.

In this criminal appeal, the Court analyzes the refusal of the trial judge to allow counsel for appellant to question a witness concerning “no deal with the Solicitor’s office or law enforcement.” Additional issues involve a motion for directed verdict in a trafficking cocaine scenario allegedly involving imitation cocaine and state of mind testimony proffered by appellant.

Andrew F. Lindemann, of Davidson, Morrison & Lindemann, of Columbia; and Charles V. Verner, of Harley & Verner, of Newberry, for appellant. Albert V. Smith, of Spartanburg; and Henry Hammer, Howard Hammer and Arthur K. Aiken, all of Hammer, Hammer, Carrigg & Potterfield, of Columbia, for respondents.

The South Carolina Department of Transportation appeals a verdict in an action brought under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act, arguing (1) the trial court erred in allowing the case to be tried in a county other than the county in which the action arose, (2) the trial court erred in directing a verdict in favor of one of the opposing parties regarding whether that party was negligent, and (3) the trial court erred in refusing to charge the defense of unavoidable accident.