Sean K. Trundy, of Pratt-Thomas, Epting & Walker, of Charleston, for appellants. Steven L. Smith and Wm. Mark Koontz, both of Smith, Collins & Newton, of Charleston, for respondents.

This civil action involves whether the court of equity possesses plenary power to move the location of an existing easement by necessity.

Robert A. McKenzie and Gary H. Johnson, II, both of McDonald, McKenzie, Rubin, Miller & Lybrand, of Columbia, for appellant. Stephen E. Darling, of Haynsworth, Sinkler & Boyd, of Charleston, for respondent.

This appeal involves a claim for contribution under the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act, S.C. Code Ann. §§ 15-38-10 through –70 (Supp. 2002).

J. Ray Westmoreland, of Hilton Head Island, for appellants. John R.C. Bowen, of Laughlin & Bowen, of Hilton Head Island, for respondent.

This civil action involves whether the Master-in-Equity erred in finding that appellants’ conduct in first leasing and then purchasing a condominium unit with a clearly visible ventilation system running through it constituted waiver of appellants’ rights to later complain that the ventilation system constituted a trespass.

Allan L. Shackelford, of Greensboro; and James L. Gale, of Raleigh, both of NC, for appellant. G. Dana Sinkler, of Warren & Sinkler, of Charleston, for respondent.

This case involves whether the FAA controls in regard to the efficacy of an arbitration clause in the employment relocation of a cardiovascular surgeon from Michigan to South Carolina thereby affecting interstate commerce.

Assistant Appellate Defender Eleanor Duffy Cleary, 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 Senior Assistant Attorney General Norman M. Rapoport, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Ralph E. Hoisington, of Charleston, for respondent.

This criminal case involves the consideration of identification testimony under a show-up identification scenario.

Deputy Chief Attorney Joseph L. Savitz, III, and Senior Assistant Appellate Defender Wanda H. Haile, both 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 Donald J. Zelenka and Sr. Assistant Attorney General William Edgar Salter, III, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Cecil Kelley Jackson, of Sumter, for respondent.

Burgess appeals her convictions for murder and possession of a weapon, arguing the trial judge erred in failing to order a psychiatric evaluation to determine her competency to stand trial.

Tara Shurling, of Columbia, for appellant. Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles H. Richardson and Senior Assistant Attorney General Harold M. Coombs, Jr., all of Columbia; and Solicitor Edgar Lewis Clements, III, of Florence, for respondent.

In this criminal appeal, Richardson contends the trial court erred (1) in ruling some of his peremptory strikes were exercised improperly, and (2) in limiting his cross-examination of the victim.

Kenneth L. Holland, of Gaffney, for appellant. William S. Brown, of Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, of Greenville, for Respondents.

Kennedy appeals arguing the admission of routine blood test results taken after his auto accident to prove his negligence per se were prejudicial to him.

James G. Carpenter and Jennifer J. Miller, both of the Carpenter Law Firm, of Greenville, for appellant-respondent. Boyd B. Nicholson, Jr., and Thomas H. Coker, Jr., both of Haynsworth, Sinkler & Boyd, of Greenville, for respondents-appellants.

This civil action involves a taxpayer challenging Greenville County’s procurement of design-build services. Several cases are consolidated and involve the county’s use and application of its procurement procedures relating to: (1) a proposal (RFP) by Modern Continental South, Inc.; (2) the Roads Paving Program; and (3) the Forensic Lab Project.

Carl H. Jacobson, of Uricchio, Howe, Krell, Jacobson, Toporek, Theos & Keith, of Charleston, for appellants. William O. Sweeny, III, and William R. Calhoun, Jr., both of Sweeny, Wingate & Barrow, of Columbia, for respondents.

This case involves the issue of whether an insured is entitled to reformation of an insurance contract to include UIM coverage. The insured, who previously carried but later dropped UIM coverage with the insurer, asserts insurer never made a meaningful offer of UIM coverage. Insurer asserts it was not required to make a new offer after insured dropped the UIM coverage, and its initial offer was meaningful.

J. Calhoun Pruitt, Jr., of Pruitt & Pruitt, of Anderson, for appellant. Michael F. Mullinax, of Anderson, for respondents.

This case involves whether a conformed copy of a will should be admitted to probate.

Jack B. Swerling, of Columbia, for appellant. General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka and Assistant Attorney General Melody J. Brown, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Thomas E. Pope, of York, for respondent.

William Patrick Floyd appeals his convictions for murder and possession of a firearm during commission of a violent crime, alleging error in various evidentiary rulings and jury instructions.

Gary Lane Cartee, of N. Charleston, for appellant. Elliott T. Halio, of Halio & Halio, of Charleston, for respondent.

Patient sued his former physician following a failed surgery; the jury found for the physician. Patient appeals, contending that the trial court erred in preventing him from arguing in the closing argument that the physician had falsified the record.

Charles B. Jordan, Jr., of Van Osdell, Lester, Howe & Jordan, of Myrtle Beach, for appellant. John B. McCutcheon, Jr., Mary Ruth Baxter and Arrigo P. Carotti, all of McCutcheon, McCutcheon & Baxter, of Conway; and Howell V. Bellamy, Jr, and Rob Shelton, of Myrtle Beach, for respondents.

In this declaratory judgment action, the master ruled the South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) was authorized by S.C. Code Ann. § 57-25-190(E) (Supp. 2002) to relocate a non-conforming sign owned by Topp, Inc, d/b/a Mr. Sub, which absent the statute would lose its grandfathered status under the City of Myrtle Beach’s zoning ordinances upon relocation. The City appeals, arguing the SCDOT failed to fully comply with section 57-25-190.

Jean Perrin Derrick, of Lexington, for appellant. Carolyn B. Steigner and Daun C. Steigner, both of Williams, Hendrix, Steigner & Brink, of Lexington, for respondent.

This is a custody case in which the Appellant argues the family court erred by granting the Respondent custody based on Appellant’s relocation to Kentucky with her new husband.

Donald E. Rothwell, of Rothwell Law Firm, of Irmo, for appellant. John F. Hardaway, of Columbia, for respondent.

In this suit by a consumer against a boat dealer and a manufacturer for damages based on breach of warranty theories, dealer appeals from a jury verdict and post-trial award of attorney fees, alleging the trial court improperly denied its motions for new trial absolute, new trial nisi remittitur, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and severance. Additionally, dealer argues the Magnuson-Moss Act does not allow an award of attorney fees against the dealer.

J. Mark Taylor and C. Vance Stricklin, both of Moore, Taylor & Thomas, of West Columbia; and Cynthia Barrier Castengera, of Newland, NC, for appellant. F. Glenn Smith, of Columbia, for respondent.

This appeal considers the classification of property as marital or nonmarital pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 20-7-743, as well as consideration of the family court’s denial of Rule 60(b)(2) and 60 (b)(3) motions.

William H. Davidson, II, Andrew F. Lindemann and James M. Davis, Jr., all of Davidson, Morrison & Lindemann, of Columbia, for appellant. Richard A. Harpootlian; and Leigh James Leventis, both of Columbia, for respondents.

This is an appeal from the trial court’s grant of a new trial absolute to the Plaintiff-Respondent in an automobile negligence case.

Kirby D. Shealy, III, of Baker, Ravenel & Bender, of Columbia, for appellant. Louis H. Lang, of Callison, Tighe & Robinson, of Columbia, for respondent.

This case involves whether the master-in-equity properly dismissed a declaratory judgment action brought to resolve a boundary line dispute between two adjacent landowners, where the Respondent’s deed description for the boundary was admittedly incorrect, but Appellant could not establish the original boundary line because the natural markers referenced in Appellant’s deed no longer exist and could not be ascertained by surveyors for either party.

Joel H. Smith, James T. Irvin, III, and Courtney Cooke Shytle, all of Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, of Columbia, for appellants-respondents. J. Marvin Mullis, Jr., of Mullis Law Firm, of Columbia; and Frank Anthony Barton, of W. Columbia, for respondent-appellant.

The parties in this products liability case have filed cross-appeals concerning procedural decisions of the trial court. Williams argues that transferring venue from Florence County to Lexington County was erroneous. Pioneer argues that the trial court erred in granting a new trial based on mutual mistake of the parties concerning certain evidence. In granting the new trial after the jury returned a verdict for Pioneer, the judge relied on the 13th Juror Doctrine and Rule 60(b).

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 Barbara R. Morgan, of Aiken, for respondent.

Stephens was convicted of murder. On appeal he argues the testimony of one key witness was impermissible hearsay. Furthermore, Stephens argues the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to a flawed indictment.

J.D. Mosteller, III, of Barnwell; and Stephen A. Spitz, of Columbia, for appellants. Richard B. Ness, of Early & Ness, of Bamberg, for respondent.

This case involves whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment on an implied easement claim.

Assistant Appellate Defender Aileen P. Clare, of SC Office of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for respondent. Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles H. Richardson and Senior Assistant Attorney General Norman M. Rapoport; and Solicitor Warren Blair Giese, all of Columbia, for appellant.

This appeal concerns the State’s challenge to the circuit court’s exclusion of evidence pursuant to the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

H. Wayne Floyd, of W. Columbia, for appellant. John D. Elliott, of Columbia, for respondent.

In this case, the family court determined that establishing paternity of a 34-year old child is not barred by a statute of limitations. The family court determined that Bannister was the biological father of this mentally-challenged child and ordered him to pay child support. In his appeal, Nicholson argues that the statute of limitations has run and that the family court committed error in following DSS support guidelines.