Stephen L. Brown, Russell G. Hines, and Christine K. Toporek, of Charleston, for Appellant. Bonnie T. Brisbane, of North Charleston, for Respondent. Bryan Gilbert Grevey, of Mt. Pleasant, for Guardian ad Litem.

Thomas J. Keaveny, II, and Amy Rothschild, of Charleston, for Appellant. Mark A. Tinsley, of Allendale, C. Bradley Hutto, of Orangeburg, and Robert Norris Hill, of Newberry, for Respondent.

This is an appeal of a jury verdict in a personal injury action. At issue in this appeal are (1) whether the defendant is entitled to either a new trial absolute or new trial nisi remittitur based on the jury's decision to award the plaintiff a monetary verdict greatly exceeding his ascertainable actual damages, (2) whether the plaintiff's wife should have been excluded as a trial witness because her participation in the trial was disclosed only a week before the hearing, (3) whether the defendant was entitled to a new trial because of the jury's abbreviated deliberations, and (4) whether the trial court should have granted a new trial pursuant to the thirteenth juror doctrine.

Robert T. Williams, Sr. and Benjamin A. Stitely, of Lexington, for Appellant. Senior Assistant Attorney General Harold M. Coombs, Jr., of Office of the Attorney General, of Columbia, for Respondent.

In this criminal matter William Conrad Martin appeals his conviction and sentence for felony DUI arguing: (1) the trial court erred in allowing opinion testimony that fell outside the realm of the expert's qualifications, and (2) the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict.

G. Trenholm Walker and Francis M. Ervin, of Charleston, for Appellant. Wallace K. Lightsey and Rita Bolt Barker, of Greenville, for Respondents Douglas E. David and Martins Point, LP. Carlisle Roberts, Jr, of Columbia, Elizabeth Applegate Dieck, of North Charleston, and Davis Arjuna Whitfield-Cargile, of North Charleston, for South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, Office of Ocean and Coastel Resource Managment.

This appeal arises from a consolidated case in which one plaintiff sought enforcement of a conservation easement and another plaintiff sought enforcement of a deed restriction, both by way of enjoining the appellant from constructing a dock on a parcel of property in Charleston County. At a bench trial, the Circuit Court enforced the deed restriction and enjoined the appellant from constructing the dock. The appellant argues the trial court erred in making findings on the issue of the conservation easement despite that claim being settled before trial, as well as enforcing the deed restriction that was neither reasonable, nor part of a plan of reciprocal covenants.

C. Mitchell Brown, Michael J. Anzelmo, and Monteith P. Todd, of Columbia, for Appellant. Hutson S. Davis, Jr, of Okatie, Andrew Gordon Melling, of Columbia, Weldon R. Johnson, of Columbia, Andrew F. Lindemann, of Columbia, and James Edward Bradley, of West Columbia, for Respondents.

In this appeal, Walterboro Community Hospital, Inc., d/b/a Colleton Medical Center (Colleton), contends the circuit court erred in holding that Colleton was not entitled to indemnification for the costs it incurred in defending and settling a malpractice action brought by a third party. Collecton also argues that the circuit court erred in finding against Colleton on its breach of contract claim against CareFirst Health Specialists.

M. Dawes Cooke, Jr. and K. Michael Barfield, of Charleston, for Appellants/Respondents. J. Edward Bell, III, and Vanessa A. Richardson, of Georgetown, for Respondents/Appellants.

Lachenbruch and Normotherm, LLC appeal the trial court's grant of motions for a directed verdict with regard to their claims for fraudulent conveyance, constructive trust, civil conspiracy, piercing the corporate veil, and punitive damages. Lachenbruch and Normotherm, LLC also appeal the denial of their motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on their conversion claim. Richard Barnett cross-appeals the trial court's refusal to grant a new trial absolute on grounds of excessive damages and the trial court's refusal to grant a new trial nisi remittitur.

William P. Walker, of Lexington, A. Camden Lewis and Peter D. Protopapas, of Columbia, for Appellants/Respondents. Sara P. Spruill, of Columbia, for Respondent-Appellant.

The Thorntons appeal the trial court’s order striking their class action allegations and finding that no private right of action exists under the South Carolina Mining Act. SCE&G cross-appeals the trial court’s refusal to grant summary judgment based on the statute of limitations.

Jeffrey Scott Jones, of Greenville, for Appellants. Robert Scott Dover, of Pickens, for Respondent.

In this workers' compensation case, Appellants, Sealed Air Corporation (Employer) and Liberty Insurance Corporation (Carrier) (collectively Appellants), seek review of the circuit court's ruling that Respondent Leslie Long (Claimant) provided adequate notice to Employer of her spinal injury within the ninety-day deadline set forth in S.C.Code Ann. Section 42-15-20. Appellants argue that substantial evidence supports the finding of the Workers' Compensation Commission that Claimant failed to provide notice to Employer within the deadline. Appellants also argue that the circuit court exceeded the scope of its review by re-weighing the evidence and by making it own findings of fact.

Stephen P. Groves, Sr. and Thomas S. Tisdale, Jr., of Columbia, for Appellants. Jack M. Scoville, Jr, of Georgetown, for Respondents.

This case concerns the operation of a bed and breakfast in the Woodland Plantation subdivision in Georgetown County by Appellants Levon Dunn and Pamela Dunn (the Dunns). Respondents, AJG Holdings, LLC, and several additional owners of property in the subdivision (Respondents), filed this action against the Dunns and the subdivision's developer, Appellant Helen Sasser (Sasser), to enforce a restrictive covenant prohibiting the use of property for commercial purposes without express written consent from the developer. The Dunns and Sasser filed several counterclaims, and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The circuit court granted partial summary judgment to Respondents, and the Dunns and Sasser appealed. They argue that Sasser lawfully assigned her developer rights to the Dunns, or, in the alternative, no one had the right to enforce the restrictive covenants absent some new agreement among the subdivision's property owners. The Dunns and Sasser also challenge the grant of summary judgment on several of their counterclaims.

Deputy Chief Appellate Defender for Capital Appeals Robert M. Dudek, of South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, of Columbia, and Megan Sara Ehrlich, of Charleston, for Appellant. Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, of Office of the Attorney General, of Columbia, and Solicitor Scarlett Anne Wilson, of Charleston, for Respondent.

Tracy B. appeals his juvenile conviction for murder. He argues that the family court erred in (1) failing to suppress an inculpatory statement he gave to police and (2) failing to find that he acted in self-defense.

John S. Nichols and Donald Gist, of Columbia, for Appellants. Mary C. McCormac, of Clemson, for Respondent Town of Iva.

Willie Johnson and other property owners in the Town of Iva (Appellants) appeal the trial court's order granting summary judgment to the Town of Iva, Iva City Council, and Mayor Bobby Gentry (Respondents). Appellants assert the trial court erred in holding their claims were barred by the Tort Claims Act statute of limitations.

Appellate Defender M. Celia Robinson, of South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant. Assistant Attorney General Christina Catoe, of Office of the Attorney General, of Columbia, and Solicitor John Gregory Hembree, of Conway, for Respondent.

Wesley Smith was convicted of aiding and abetting homicide by child abuse. On appeal, Smith contends the trial court erred in admitting evidence of prior injury to the child victim, erred in charging the jury as to a subsection of the aiding and abetting statute, erred in restricting cross-examination of a witness, and erred in restricting Smith's presentation of evidence in violation of the Sixth Amendment.

Edward K. Pritchard, III, of Charleston, David M. Dolendi and Catalina J. Sugayan, of Chicago, IL., for Appellant United National Insurance Company. Thomas C. Salane, of Columbia, for SC School Boards Insurance Trust. Frank S. Holleman, David H. Koysza, and J. Theodore Gentry,of Greenville, for Respondent.

In this action for damages and a declaration of insurance coverage, United National Insurance Company, and South Carolina School Boards Insurance Trust and South Carolina School Boards Insurance Trust--Property/Casualty Trust Fund (collectively, the Trust), appeal the trial court's grant of Beaufort County School District's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of coverage under sexual abuse and sexual harassment endorsement to an insurance policy.

Deputy Chief Attorney Wanda H. Carter, 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, of Office of the Attorney General, of Columbia, and Solicitor Robert Mills Ariail, of Greenville, for Respondent.

Carl Craine appeals his first-degree burglary conviction and twenty-five year sentence, arguing the trial court erred in granting the State's motion to amend his indictment at trial.

James H. Moss, of Beaufort, for Appellants. C. Scott Graber, of Beaufort, for Respondent.

Karen Harris appeals the jury's verdict in favor of the University of South Caroliina on her claim for actual and punitive damages resulting from injuries she sustained in a fall on University property. Harris argues the trial court erred in (1) charging the jury on the Recreational Use Statute, (2) charging she carried the burden of proof regarding the Recreational Use Statue, (3) charging gross negligence, and (4) charging the law reqarding the duty owed to a licensee.

Wesley D. Few, of Columbia, for Appellant. George R. McElveen, III, of Columbia, for Respondent.

In this contract action Tucker Oil Company appeals a decision of the trial court finding it owed Consignment Sales, LLC a portion of net profits under several supply contracts. Tucker Oil argues the trial court erred by (1) applying an equitable remedy on issues for which it found an enforceable contract existed, (2) ruling in Consignment Sales' favor without proof of damages, and (3) ruling in Consignment Sales' favor in its declaratory judgment action. Finally, Tucker Oil maintains the trial court abused its discretion in finding a valid contract existed between the parties.

Appellate Defender M. Celia Robinson, 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, Assistant Attorney General Julie M. Thames, of Office of the Attorney General, of Columbia, and Solicitor Robert Mills Ariail, of Greenville, for Respondent.

Waltoric U. Moses appeals his conviction and sentence for assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature, arguing the trial court erred in: (1) ruling his confession was voluntarily made; (2) refusing to dismiss the charges due to the State's destruction of and failure to disclose videotaped evidence; (3) refusing to grant the motion to quash the indictments; and (4) improperly admitting statements by a witness under Rule 613, SCRE.

Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General, John W. McIntosh, Chief Deputy Attorney General, T. Stephen Lynch, Assistant Deputy Attorney General, and Assistant Attorney General Daniel E. Grigg, of Office of the Attorney General, of Columbia, for Appellant. Wade S. Weatherford, III, of Gaffney, for Respondent.

The South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) appeals the circuit court's order affirming the magistrate's ruling that a video game machine did not constitute an illegal gaming device as defined in South Carolina Code Section 12-21-2710. SLED contends the statute prohibits machines with a free-play feature, that there is no requirement the machine be used for gambling, and that the game constitutes a game of chance.

Rebecca West, of Lexington, for Appellant. James Wilson Tucker, Jr., of Rock Hill, for Respondent.

In this divorce action, Husband appeals the family court's calculation of alimony, including its imputing income to Husband although he was unemployed. Husband also appeals the family court's making the alimony and child support awards retroactive.