James Lee Bell, of Charleston, for Appellant. Timothy A. Domin, and Charlton Desaussure, Jr., of Charleston, for Respondent.

Blind Tiger, a restaurant in Charleston, appeals from the Board of Architectural Review's denial of its request to place a film on its restaurant windows. Blind Tiger argues (1) the circuit court erred in finding its appeal was untimely and (2) the Board of Architectural Review did not have jurisdiction to render a decision because the film was placed on the interior of the restaurant's windows.

Mark D. Cauthen and R. Daniel Addison, of Columbia, and Michael A. Farry and David A. Wilson, of Greenville, for Appellants. Franklin D. Beattie, Jr., of Georgetown, for Respondent.

In this workers' compensation appeal, the employer challenges the Workers' Compensation Commission's finding that the employee sustained a change of condition for the worse that left him permanently and totally disabled.

Marvin P. Jackson, of Florence, for Appellant. Marian Williams Scalise, of Myrtle Beach, and Andrew F. Lindemann, of Columbia, for Respondents.

In this medical malpractice case, the personal representative of Turbeville's estate appeals the trial court order granting summary judgment in favor of the treating physicians.

Chace Damon Campbell, of Greenville, for Appellant. Vanessa Lynn Hartman, of Greenville, for Respondent. Russell Paul Reach, of Greenville, for guardian ad litem.

The father appeals the family court's order terminating his parental rights on the ground of failure to support arguing his failure to support was not willful, as he earns no income while in prison.

Stephen B. Samuels, of Lexington, for Appellant. Edward P. Martin, Jr., of Columbia, for Respondents.

In this workers' compensation action, the single commissioner, full commission, and circuit court all found claimant was not entitled to workers' compensation benefits because his injury occurred while he was on his way to work. Claimant appeals, arguing that our court should adopt the "required vehicle" exception to the "going and coming rule," or in the alternative, that the circumstances of his injury qualify for already recognized exceptions to the rule.

Ruth L. Cate and David M. Collins, Jr., of Spartanburg, for Appellant. Kenneth Philip Shabel, of Spartanburg, for Respondent Department of Social Services. Michael Todd Thigpen, of Spartanburg, for Guardian ad Litem.

In this case, a mother appeals a family court order terminating her parental rights to two of her minor children.

Virgin Johnson, Jr., of Orangeburg, and Robert J. Thomas, of Columbia, for Appellants. D'Anne Haydel, of Orangeburg, for Respondent Orangeburg County Fire Commission. David S. Doty and Andrea E. White, of Columbia, for Respondent Orangeburg Consolidated School District Three. John G. Felder and Bates N. Felder, of St. Matthews, for Respondents Doug Shuler, Sr. and Catherine J. Breaker.

Appellants, Michael P. Horger and Stanley V. Kiser, appeal from an order of the master in equity denying their petition under section 57-9-10 of the South Carolina Code to close a portion of a road, Vincent Drive, that is located in Orangeburg County.

William S. Brown and Elizabeth M. McMillan, of Greenville, for Appellant. Perry D. Boulier and William B. Darwin, Jr., of Spartanburg, for Respondents.

Maytag Corporation and Lynch Appliance Center appeal from an order concerning discovery and expert testimony, and from the jury verdict in favor of the Reids.

Larry C. Brandt, of Walhalla, for Appellant. Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General W. Rutledge Martin, of Columbia, and Solicitor Christina T. Adams, of Anderson, for Respondent.

William Max Nicholson appeals his convictions for three counts of criminal sexual conduct. On appeal, Nicholson alleges numerous trial errors, including problems with the indictments against him, insufficiency of the evidence to support the convictions, bias during the trial proceedings, improper failure to dismiss a juror for cause, prejudicial remarks by the State during closing argument, evidentiary concerns, improper admission of an expert witness's testimony, and the cumulative prejudicial effect of all the alleged errors in the proceeding.

Thomas M. Neal, III, of Columbia, and M. Gwyn DuBose-Schmitt, of Lexington, for Appellants. George W. Branstiter, of Lexington, for Guardian Ad Litem. James B. Richardson, Jr., of Columbia, for Respondents.

The grandparents of a minor child appeal from a family court order declining to terminate the parental rights of the child's father, who is serving a life sentence for murdering the child's mother.

John Joseph Dodds, III, of Mt. Pleasant, for Appellant. H. Stanley Feldman and Donald Bruce Clark, of Charleston, for Respondent.

Appellant presents four issues: (1) Did the court err in concluding that the relevant provisions of the parties' separation agreement, which was previously approved and adopted as the final order of the court, were ambiguous when the agreement specifically awarded husband the sum of One Hundred Twenty Eight Thousand One Hundred Eighty Seven and No/100 ($128,187.00) Dollars from wife's 401(k) account? (2) Did the court err in failing to enforce the parties' separation agreement, which was previously approved and adopted as the final order of the court, when the agreement clearly awarded husband the sum certain of One Hundred Twenty Eight Thousand One Hundred Eighty Seven and No/100 ($128,187.00) Dollars from the wife's 401(k) account? (3) Did the court err in ruling that the best evidence of the parties' interest was the QDRO? and (4) Did the court err in construing the final order and the QDRO together in effectuating the parties' intent?

J. M. Long, III, of Conway, for Appellant. Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Norman Mark Rapoport, of Columbia, and Solicitor John Gregory Hembree, of Conway, for Respondent.

Appellant presents three issues on appeal: (1) Did the trial court violate the Appellant's right to due process by stating to the witness, Richard Stanley: "The Court: Arrest this individual. Put him in jail. Leave him there. He's either guilty by his own admission in trafficking in cocaine or he's guilty of perjury. He's to go to jail. Have him indicted first thing in the morning. I will not permit that sort of conduct in my courtroom. Now, he's obviously, either guilty of trafficking in cocaine or he's lying. You agree with that Mr. Long? He can't have it both ways? Mr. Long: That's correct, Your Honor. The Court: Alright. He will remain in jail. Let the record reflect that I'm also putting him in jail tonight in the event we will need him for further testmony in the morning. He may be subject to recall, being under that I want to be sure he's here for recall by either the State or the defendant. But I want him indicted in the morning." and by incarcerating Richard Stanley and allowing the State to recall him as a witness? (2) Did the trial court err in denying Appellant's motion for directed verdict on the charge of trafficking in crack cocaine? and (3) Did the trial court err in denying Appellant's mistrial motions?

Charles E. Carpenter, Jr. and S. Elizabeth Brosnan, of Columbia, and Douglas C. Baxter, of Myrtle Beach, for Appellant. W. E. Jenkinson, III, and Ronnie Alan Sabb, of Kingstree, for Respondent.

In this negligence action, QGH, a hospital in Lake City, South Carolina, appeals from a jury verdict, awarding Jenny Mishoe $675,000 in actual damages and $1,250,000 in punitive damages for injuries she sustained from falling on the pavement outside the hospital's emergency room. The hospital argues the trial judge erred in denying its motions for a directed verdict, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and mistrial. The hospital also argues the trial judge erred in refusing to allow it to impeach Mishoe's trial testimony with evidence that one of the doctors who diagnosed Mishoe refused to see her again because of her prior litigation history.

Robert M. Kunes, of Charleston, for Appellant. Ronald Stewart Gaynor, of Pawleys Island, for Respondent Robert L. Moran, Jr. James B. Drennan, III, of Spartanburg, for Respondents Louis A. Chubiz and Michael J. Chubiz

The issue on appeal is whether the circuit court erred in affirming the probate court's finding that Trustee Moran-not Appellant University--was the "competent person . . . having beneficial interests . . . affected by the compromise" under S.C. Code Ann. Section 62-3-1102 (1987). Stated differently, the issue is whether the Appellant University of Southern California, which is the sole remainder beneficiary of the revocable trust, is a necessary party to that Compromise and Settlement Agreement.

Ronald R. Norton, of Conway, for Appellant. Kevin Michael Hughes, of North Myrtle Beach, for Respondent. Frederick L. Harris, of Myrtle Beach, Guardian Ad Litem.

Christopher Aumick appeals from a family court order denying him custody of his daughter, arguing the court erred in finding there had not been a substantial change in circumstances warranting a change in custody and that the court erred in awarding Theresa Russell attorney's fees.

Chalmers Carey Johnson, of Charleston, for Appellants. Michael S. Thwaites, of Greer, for Respondent.

Appellants present several issues on appeal: (1) Did the Millers perform and work overtime hours at Blumethal Mills, Inc. so as to give efficacy to a FLSA claim? (2) Did the circuit court judge err in applying and relying on the holding in Darrikhuma v. Southerland Corp., 975 F. Supp. 778 (D.Md. 1997)? (3)Did appellants engage in pre-shift activities which are compensable under the FLSA?

Ronald E. Boston, of Columbia, and R. Wayne Byrd, Wilson S. Sheldon, and R. Heath Atkinson, of Florence, for Appellant. James R. Gilreath, of Greenville, James B. Van Osdell, Charles B. Jordan, Jr., and Cynthia Graham Howe, of Myrtle Beach, and Scott M. Mongillo, of Summerville, for Respondent.

On August 2, 2001, Collins Music Co., Inc., was awarded a jury verdict against IGT a/k/a IGT-North America in the amount of Fifteen Million Dollars. A judgment was entered in the Office of the Clerk of Court for Horry County in the sum of Fifteen Million Dollars on August 3, 2001. The circuit judge issued an order on December 22, 2003, granting and awarding Collins Music Co., Inc., fourteen per cent (14%) interest on the Fifteen Million Dollar judgment to be computed from August 3, 2001, until paid. In substance, IGT presents three issues on appeal: (1) Does the amendment of S.C. Code Section 43-31-20(B) by Act Number 344, Section 4 of the 2000 General Assembly create a window of time where no interest is paid on a judgment similar to the judgment obtained by Collins? (2) Whether pursuant to Section 34-31-20(B), as amended, Collins' judgment accrued post-judgment interest, if at all, at the legal rate of Twelve Per Cent (12%) because it was enrolled and entered on or after January 1, 2001? and (3) Whether pursuant to Act Number 344, Section 4, of the 2000 General Assembly, the South Carolina common law post-judgment interest rate applies? Collins argues: (1) Section 34-31-20(B), as amended, left intact the legal rate of Fourteen Percent (14%) interest on the Collins' judgment; and (2) All issues are moot because IGT paid the sum of Twenty Million Six Hundred Three Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty One and 08/100 ($20,603,831.08) Dollars in satisfaction of judgment in Nevada. IGT contends the interest issue was reserved in Nevada.

J. Michael Taylor, of Columbia, for Appellant-Respondent. Charles H. Williams, of Orangeburg, and Gregory Samuel Forman, of Charleston, for Respondent-Appellant.

In this cross-appeal from a family court order, Wife argues the family court erred in: (1) determining findings of fact; (2) awarding Wife only $500 in monthly alimony; (3) identifying, valuing, and apportioning certain assets and debts of the marital estate; and (4) declining to award Wife attorney's fees and costs. Husband asserts the family court erred in: (1) not factoring Wife's alleged dissipation of marital assets when determining equitable distribution; and (2) awarding Wife $500 in monthly alimony.

Michael M. Jordan, of Sumter, for Appellant. Robert H. Hood, Mary Agnes Hood Craig, D. Nathan Hughey, and Deborah H. Sheffield, of Charleston, for Respondent.

The primary issue of this case is whether the insureds intended to deceive the insurer in their answers contained in the applications for a life insurance policy.

Cheryl Turner Hopkins, of Florence, for Appellant. John M. Ervin, III, of Darlington, and Stephanie P. McDonald, of Charleston, for Respondent.

In this family court matter, Appellant argues the trial court erred and abused its discretion by ordering a new trial on the issue of equitable division, sua sponte, more than 120 days after the final divorce at a hearing to show cause.

Paul A. James, of Mt. Pleasant, for Appellant. David B. Wheeler and Edward T. Fenno, of Charleston, for Respondent.

Appellant presents two issues: (1) Were the attorney's fees awarded by the master in equity excessive and punitive in nature? (2) Did the master in equity consider the Blumberg factors as outlined in Blumberg v. Nealco, Inc., 310 S.C. 492, 427 S.E.2d 659 (1993)?

Sean K. Trundy, of North Charleston, and Thomas Hayden Hesse, of Summerville, for Appellant. Douglas M. Zayicek, of Myrtle Beach, for Respondent.

Brewer appeals from a grant of summary judgment, arguing the trial court erred in concluding (1) that the Pavilion was not negligent in its operation of the roller coaster; 2) that Brewer assumed the risk of her injury; and (3) that the Pavilion's warnings were sufficient as a matter of law.

Mark H. Lund, III, of Bluffton, for Appellant. John J. Kerr, of Charleston, for Respondent.

In this property dispute involving a tax deed, Appellant contends the trial court erred in: (1) finding Respondent was not barred by section 12-51-160 of the South Carolina Code of Laws from challenging the propriety and efficacy of the tax sale and resulting deed; and (2) ruling the tax sale and deed of the disputed property were void.

Louis David Nettles, of Florence, for Appellant. Timothy Matthew Ammons, of Dillon, for Respondent Ashley Long Brunson. Connie Long, of Latta, pro se.

This case presents the question whether language in an insurance policy is ambiguous and therefore susceptible to the interpretation that the emancipated daughter of the named insured, who was not a resident of the household, is entitled to underinsured benefits.

Toni Lee Tack Pennington, of Pawleys Island, for Appellant. Alice D. Potter, of Columbia, for Respondent. Louis Morant, of Georgetown, for Guardian Ad Litem.

In this domestic action, the court analyzes a family court's business valuation and reviews a 91% to 9% split of marital assets.