C. C. Harness, III, Melinda Lucka, and Jefferson D. Griffith, III, of Mt. Pleasant, for Appellants. William A. Scott, of Charleston, for Respondents Jack L. Sims, John McCrown, and Molly Ball. Carlisle Roberts, Jr., and Evander Whitehead, of Columbia, and Leslie S. Riley, of Charleston, for Respondent SCDHEC (OCCRM).

Bruce and Barbara Olson appeal the Administrative Law Court's order holding a dock permit granted to an adjoining land owner was not a joint-use permit and affirming the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management's denial of the Olsons' application for an independent dock permit. In addition, the Olsons assert their rights to equal protection and due process were violated.

Tara Shurling, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, of Columbia, and Solicitor Harold W. Gowdy, III, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

In this murder case, the Appellant avers the exclusion of proffered testimony constituted an abuse of discretion that deprived Appellant of his due process right to present witnesses in his own defense. The State replies: When the defendants testified that they went to the apartment to "get some weed" on December 8, 2004 when the admitted shooting occurred, there was no abuse of discretion in excluding proposed defense evidence unknown to each defendant at the time of the shooting: (1) that a person attempted to solicit selling drugs to a neighbor of the apartment in October 2004 as unduly prejudicial under Rule 403; and (2) evidence that the victim, Tavaris Howze, who was seated on the couch watching a movie and shot in the left side of his head, had a single partially smoked hand rolled cigarette which was reported to contain marijuana, was not relevant. Alternatively, any error in the admission of this evidence with de minimus probative value was harmless error in light of their testimony and the evidence of guilt where the exclusion did not require a new trial under Rule 103.

Charles H. Sheppard and Rachel D. Erwin, of Blythewood, for Appellant. Richard L. Pearce, of Aiken, for Respondents. Danny C. Crowe, R. Hawthorne Barrett, and Shannon F. Bobertz, of Columbia, for Amicus Curiae Municipal Association of SC.

In this criminal prosecution, the State appeals contending the circuit court erred: (1) in interpreting Section 56-5-4140(2)(a) to not limit the maximum gross vehicle weight of the enumerated vehicles of that subsection beyond the allowable cumulative axle weights notwithstanding the plain language of the limiting phrase for maximum gross vehicle weight; and (2) in interpreting the words "this section" in the phrase "and the gross weight may not exceed the maximum weights allowed by this section" to refer to and confine itself to subsection 56-5-4140(2)(a) to the exclusion of 56-5-4140(1)(a) which sets forth maximum weights of commercial vehicles thus ignoring the legislative intent to restrict gross vehicle weight on South Carolina highways.

Darrell Thomas Johnson, Jr. and Warren Paul Johnson, of Hardeeville, for Appellant. Allison Molony Carter, of Charleston, for Respondent.

In this workers' compensation case, the Appellant alleges the circuit court erred: (1) in affirming the Full Commission's denial of benefits to the Claimant when the Claimant was injured in a motor vehicle accident while on the route assigned by the Employer and acting in furtherance of his employer's business at the time of the accident; (2) in finding that the Claimant deviated from his employment by allowing a trainee to drive the dump truck; and (3) in holding the Commission's finding that the Appellant allowed an unauthorized driver drive the truck was supported by substantial evidence.

Mark D. Cauthen and T. Jeff Goodwyn, Jr., of Columbia, for Appellant. Jan L. Warner and Matthew E. Steinmetz, of Columbia, and Donald E. Rothwell, of Irmo, for Respondent.

Roy Tucker appeals from an order of the circuit court imposing a constructive trust. Tucker contends the circuit court erred (1) in finding a constructive trust was appropriate, (2) in setting the monetary amount of the trust, and (3) in denying his motion for a new trial or for new trial nisi remittitur.

Appellate Defender Kathrine H. Hudgins, of South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Senior Assistant Attorney General Harold M. Coombs, Jr., of Office of the Attorney General, of Columbia, and Solicitor Robert Mills Ariail, of Greenville, for Respondent.

Hughes appeals his jury verdict and resulting sentence by the circuit court. He asserts the court erred in finding: the seizure and subsequent search did not exceed the scope of the original traffic stop; he voluntarily consented to search; and the officer's pat down search did not exceed its lawful scope..

Patrick J. McDonald, of Charleston, and Steven L. Smith, of North Charleston, for Appellants. Frank M. Cisa, of Mt. Pleasant, for Respondent.

In this appeal originating from a breach of contract action, Appellants contest the circuit court's award of attorney's fees and interest to Respondent, who prevailed below.

Rodney M. Brown, of Fountain Inn, for Appellants-Respondents. Floyd Matlock Elliott, of Greenville, for Respondent Insurance Associates, Inc. Andrew F. Lindemann, of Columbia, for Respondent-Appellant.

In this case, the defendant driver and her insurer assigned the plaintiffs their professional negligence claims against the defendant insurance agent. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurance agent finding the plaintiffs failed to prove damages.

Appellate Defender Eleanor Duffy Cleary, of South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Senior Assistant Attorney General Harold M. Coombs, Jr., of Office of the Attorney General, of Columbia, and Solicitor Robert Mills Ariail, of Greenville, for Respondent.

Whitner appeals his convictions arguing the trial judge erroneously admitted a statement he made to police before being given Miranda warnings. Whitner further contends the trial judge erred in excluding testimony regarding the potential prison sentence of the State's key witness.

W. Allen Nickles, III, and Carl L. Solomon, of Columbia, for Appellant. Steven E. Farrar, of Greenville, and John Martin Grantland, of Columbia, for Respondents.

Jane Nussbaum Douglas and Natalie P. Bluestein, of Charleston, and J. Mark Taylor, of West Columbia, for Appellant. Gregory A. DeLuca, of Goose Creek, and J. Michael Taylor, of Columbia, for Respondent.

In this case, the family court terminated the husband's obligation to pay his former wife permanent periodic alimony based on a finding that the wife had been residing with another man. The family court found the 90 day cohabitating requirement found in S.C. Code Ann. Section 20-3-130 (B)(1) was established by the husband. On appeal, the wife argues the family court misconstrued the requirements of the statute and that Strickland v. Strickland, 375 S.C. 76, 650 S.E.2d 465 (2007), controls how the cohabitating requirement should be interpreted. the husband disagrees and also argues the family court's decision may be affirmed on the additional sustaining ground that the wife's relationship with the other man was tantamount to marriage.

Frank A. Barton and H. Wayne Floyd, of West Columbia, for Appellant-Respondent. Jay Bender, of Columbia, for Respondent-Appellant The Index-Journal Company, Inc. Robert E. Step and Tina Cundari, of Columbia, for Respondent-Appellant James M. Holloway, Jr.

In this suit for libel and "false light" invasion of privacy, the trial court concluded Holt, an attorney involved with Edward Lee Elmore's capital representation, was a public figure. The trial court also denied the Defendants' motion for summary judgment on Holt's libel claim. Holt appeals the trial court's determination that she is a public figure while the Defendants', Holloway and The Index Journal Company, appeal the trial court's refusal to grant summary judgment.

Deborah Brooks Durden, of Columbia, for Appellant. John Julius Pringle, Jr., of Columbia, for Respondent.

In this case, the SCDOT denied L.A. Barrier's request for disadvantaged business enterprise (DBE) certification finding L.A. Barrier was not a socially and economically disadvantaged business. At the contested hearing before the ALC, the ALC ordered the SCDOT to grant L.A. Barrier's application for certification as a DBE. On appeal, SCDOT argues several grounds for overturning the ALC's ruling, including: (1) a spouse's post hoc renunciation of interest in L.A. Barrier's stock is ineffective to invoke the provisions of the DBE statute due to the spouse's failure to revoke his interest in the jointly-held banking account from where the funds to purchase the stock originated; and (2) the gift of stock from the retiring president of L.A. Barrier to the allegedly disadvantaged incoming president prevents DBE certification as the incoming president did not make a real and substantial contribution to acquire her ownership interest as required by the applicable statute governing DBE certification. There is a good deal of federal law which governs the certificatioin process and without further discussion on the applicable law and facts of the case, at first blush, the above arguments may appear convoluted. Because of the facts and law surrounding the case, oral argument may aid the panel in its decision.

Desa Ballard and P. Christopher Smith, of West Columbia, for Appellant. Frank L. Valenta, Jr., and Philip S. Porter, of Blythewood, for Respondent.

On appeal, Ms. Persons claims the circuit court erred in finding no legal conflict exists between the administrative stay provisions of South Carolina Code Title 56, which governs the mandatory suspension of a driver's license, and the criminal stay provisions of Title 18, which governs execution of a judicially imposed criminal sentence. Ms. Persons alleges the suspension of her driver's license during the pendency of her appeal for felony driving under the influence deprived her of a constitutionally protected property right and contends her substantive and due process rights were consequently violated by the suspension.

Appellate Defender Eleanor Duffy Cleary, of South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Senior Assistant Attorney General Harold M. Coombs, Jr., of Office of the Attorney General, of Columbia, and Solicitor Robert Mills Ariail, of Greenville, for Respondent.

In this criminal appeal of a conviction for lewd act upon a minor, appellant argues error in the admission of alleged prior bad acts under the common scheme or plan exception to Rule 404, SCRE.