Jonathan D. Waller, of Angell Molony, LLC, of Aiken, for Appellants. Brent Morris Boyd, Timothy J. Newton, Donald Ryan McCabe, Jr., and Valerie Garcia Giovanoli, all of McCabe, Trotter & Beverly, P.C., of Columbia, for Respondent.

Pamela R. Mullis, of Mullis Law Firm, PA, of Columbia, for Appellant. Robert William Whelan, of Whelan Mellen & Norris, LLC, of Charleston, for Respondent.

Sandra Hoffman appeals the circuit court's order granting summary judgment to State Farm on her causes of action for breach of contract, breach of contract accompanied by a fraudulent act, and bad faith.

Clarence Davis, of Griffin Davis, of Columbia, for Appellants. Eric Steven Bland, of Bland Richter, LLP, of Lexington; Ronald L. Richter, Jr., and Scott Michael Mongillo, both of Bland Richter, LLP, of Charleston; and Steven Raymond Kropski and David W. Overstreet, both of Charleston, for Respondents.

In this action arising out of the sale and development of real estate, R. Kent Porth and Panorama Point, LLC, (collectively, Appellants) appeal the circuit court's decision to grant Robert P. Wilkins, Jr., RPW Development, Inc., and Southern Visions Realty, Inc.'s, (collectively, Respondents) Motion to Dismiss based on the circuit court's findings that (1) Appellants did not file their case within the statute of limitations period and (2) Appellants did not assert any viable causes of action against Respondents.

D. Randle Moody, II, and Laura Ashley Ahrens, both of Jackson Lewis P.C., of Greenville, for Appellants John Gandis and Andrea Comeau-Shirley. Burl Franklin Williams, of Burl F. Williams, P.A., of Greenville, for Appellant Carolina Custom Converting, LLC. W. Andrew Arnold, of Law Office of W. Andrew Arnold, P.C., of Greenville, for Respondent.

In this civil matter, John Gandis, Andrea Comeau-Shirley, and Carolina Custom Converting, LLC (collectively, Appellants) appeal the master-in-equity's order granting David Wilson post-judgment interest.

Jonathan McKey Milling, of Milling Law Firm, LLC, of Columbia, for Appellants. Daniel L. Draisen, of The Injury Law Firm, PC, of Anderson, for Respondents.

Carr Farms, Inc. and Titan Farms, LLC (collectively Appellants) appeal the circuit court's order granting Susannah Smith Watson partial summary judgment, arguing the circuit court erred in holding Watson's easements for a pond (the Pond) partially on the Appellants' properties was appurtenant and that Titan Farms did not have the right to use the portion of the Pond on its property.

In this post-conviction relief (PCR) action in which the PCR court granted Rodney C. Bryan relief of a belated appeal based on whether he knowingly waived his right to testify at trial and denied Bryan relief on other allegations ineffective assistance of counsel, both Bryan and the State filed petitions for a writ of certiorari. This court granted the petitions on several questions including (1) whether Bryan was entitled to a belated appeal; (2) whether trial counsel was ineffective by violating Bryan's right to plead not guilty when he admitted Bryan's guilt to certain charges and violation of an order of protection; and (3) whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to a witness's testimony that he alleges bolstered the testimony of the victim.

Matthew R Ozment, of Grove Ozment LLC, of Greenville, for Appellant. Phillip Arthur Kilgore, of Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, PC, of Greenville; Christopher Ray Thomas, of Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, PC, of Columbia; and Sara Elizabeth Olschewske, of Simpsonville, all for Respondent.

Appellant Eric Israel appeals the circuit court's grant of a motion for a preliminary injunction. Israel argues the circuit court erred in finding Respondent Jennings Dill, Inc. (JDI) demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits because (1) no evidence was presented to show that Israel possessed or misappropriated a trade secret or confidential information, and (2) the circuit court relied exclusively on hearsay and speculative statements to find Israel had solicited JDI's employees. Israel also argues the circuit court erred by improperly "balancing the equities" between the parties to support granting the preliminary injunction.

Louis David Nettles, of Florence, for Appellant. Robin Lilley Jackson, of Senn Legal, LLC, of Charleston, for Respondent Berkeley County Sheriff's Office. Drew Hamilton Butler and James Edward Haarsgaard, both of Richardson Plowden & Robinson, PA, of Mount Pleasant; and Carmen Vaughn Ganjehsani, of Richardson Plowden & Robinson, PA, of Columbia, all for Respondent Town of Moncks Corner.

Stephanie Gardner appeals the circuit court's grant of summary judgment to the Berkeley County Sheriff's Office and the Town of Moncks Corner on her causes of action for false arrest, malicious prosecution, and defamation, arising out of her arrest on charges that were later dismissed.

Senior Assistant Attorney General Mark Reynolds Farthing, of Columbia, for Petitioner. Tommy Arthur Thomas, of Irmo, for Respondent.

The State of South Carolina (the State) appeals an order from the PCR court granting PCR to John Upson for ineffective assistance of counsel. The State argues that the PCR court erred in finding that trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective by (1) failing to challenge or otherwise determine the admissibility of eyewitness identification evidence, (2) failing to cross examine a witness who testified that Upson had a "lazy eye," and (3) failing to challenge the State's testimony discrediting Upson's alibi defense with an expert of his own.

Wesley D. Few, of Wesley D. Few LLC, of Greenville, for Appellant. Steven Edward Buckingham, of The Law Office of Steven Edward Buckingham, LLC, of Greenville, for Respondents T3 Aviation Inc., and Frank T. Gangi. Jason James Andrighetti, of Culbertson Andrighetti, LLC, of Greenville, for Respondents ARO-D Enterprises, LLC, and Rudy Dixon.

Tiger Enterprises & Trading Company, Inc., Bonnie Walker, and Dwight Walker (Appellants) appeal the partial grant of summary judgment to ARO-D Enterprises, LLC, Rudy Dixon, T3 Aviation, LLC, and Frank T. Gangi (Respondents), arguing the trial court erred in (1) finding Appellants had adequate time for discovery; (2) granting summary judgment when there was a disputed fact regarding the existence of an agreement between the parties; (3) failing to address the South Carolina Uniform Electronic Transaction Act; (4) misapplying the law as to ARO-D Enterprises' claim and delivery cause of action; (5) prematurely granting summary judgment to Frank Gangi and T3 Aviation, LLC; and (6) misapplying the standard of review for a summary judgment motion.

Jesse Sanchez, of The Law Office of Jesse Sanchez; and Brent Souther Halversen, of Halversen & Halversen, LLC, both of Mount Pleasant, for Appellant. Kent Taylor Stair and Paul Eliot Sperry, both of Copeland, Stair, Valz & Lovell, LLP, of Charleston, for Respondent.

480 King Street, LLC (480 King) appeals a circuit court order dismissing its lawsuit against Glick/Boehm & Associates, Inc. (GBA) with prejudice on the ground that 480 King failed to comply with section 15-36-100 of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2022).

This court granted certiorari to review the post conviction relief (PCR) court's finding that Petitioner failed to prove (1) his appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising the issue of whether the trial court erred in instructing the jury that attempted murder did not require a specific intent to kill and (2) his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the trial court's jury instruction on attempted murder stating malice could be inferred from the use of a deadly weapon.

Stephen P. Hughes, William Hewitt Cox, III, and Catherine Laird Floeder, all of Howell Gibson & Hughes, PA, of Beaufort; and Mary Bass Lohr, of Parker Law Group, LLP, of Hampton, all for Appellant. Ian Wesley Freeman, of Ian Freeman Law, LLC; and Jennifer Sue Ivey and John Phillips Linton, Jr., both of Walker Gressette & Linton, LLC, all of Charleston, for Respondent.

On appeal from the grant of summary judgment to Hurley Services, LLC and Charleston Exteriors, LLC (collectively, Respondents), Builders FirstSource Southeast Group, LLC (BFS) argues the circuit court erred in (1) granting summary judgment despite the presence of genuine issues of material fact; (2) determining BFS's claims for indemnity are barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel; (3) mischaracterizing the language of the parties' contract as confusing and therefore unenforceable; (4) finding the relevant contractual language did not meet the clear and unequivocal standard articulated by Concord & Cumberland Horizontal Property Regime v. Concord & Cumberland, LLC, 424 S.C. 639, 819 S.E.2d 166 (Ct. App. 2018); and (5) holding the contractual language violates the laws and public policy of South Carolina.

Stephen P. Hughes and William Hewitt Cox, III, both of Howell Gibson & Hughes, PA, of Beaufort, for Appellant. W. McElhaney White and Todd Russell Flippin, both of Holcombe Bomar, PA, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

On appeal from the grant of partial summary judgment to Hurley Services, LLC (Hurley), Builders FirstSource Southeast Group, LLC (BFS) argues the circuit court erred in: (1) applying section 32-2-10 of the South Carolina Code (2007) to the parties' contract; (2) mischaracterizing the relief sought by BFS and thus mistakenly applying the clear and unequivocal standard of Concord & Cumberland Horizontal Property Regime v. Concord & Cumberland, LLC, 424 S.C. 639, 819 S.E.2d 166 (Ct. App. 2018) to the relevant contractual language; (3) failing to address the contract's severability provision; (4) finding an adhesion contract; and (5) determining BFS's claims for indemnity are barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel.

Caroline Scrantom, of Columbia, for Appellant. Eugene Hamilton Matthews, of Richardson Plowden & Robinson, PA, of Columbia, for Respondents.

The South Carolina Human Affairs Commission (the Commission) appeals the circuit court's dismissal of Maria Dehart as a party to its action against Yacht Cove Owners Association, Inc. (Yacht Cove) pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), SCRCP. On appeal, the Commission argues the circuit court erred in dismissing Dehart under section 33 31 834 of the South Carolina Code (2006).

David Eliot Rothstein, of Rothstein Law Firm, P.A., of Greenville, for Appellant. Thomas H. Keim, Jr., of Ford & Harrison, LLP, of Spartanburg; Allen Mattison Bogan, of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP, of Columbia; and Miles Edward Coleman and Samuel W. Outten, both of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP, of Greenville, all for Respondent.

Donza H. Mattison appeals the circuit court's grant of summary judgment dismissing her derivative action against Rondald G. Smith, Joseph M. Pazdan, Brad B. Smith, and Chad C. Cousins (collectively, Respondents) of McMillan Pazdan Smith, LLC (MPS). On appeal, Mattison argues the circuit court erred by (1) assigning her the burden of proof and disregarding many of the applicable factors when determining whether she was a fair and adequate representative for the derivative action, (2) accepting unsworn, boilerplate statements for affidavits, (3) ascribing her with an improper motive for filing the derivative action, (4) considering confidential settlement negotiations that were inadmissible under Rule 408, SCRE, (5) failing to view the facts in the light most favorable to her as required on Respondents' motion for summary judgment; (6) refusing to consider her "class of one" argument, (7) limiting the scope of discovery, and (8) refusing to address the conflict of interest that arose due to the same law firm representing MPS, Respondents, and the minority members of MPS.

David Eliot Rothstein, of Rothstein Law Firm, P.A., of Greenville, for Appellant. Thomas H. Keim, Jr., of Ford & Harrison, LLP, of Spartanburg; Allen Mattison Bogan, of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP, of Columbia; and Miles Edward Coleman and Samuel W. Outten, both of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP, of Greenville, all for Respondent.

Donza H. Mattison appeals the circuit court's grant of summary judgment for McMillan Pazdan Smith, LLC (MPS) in its declaratory judgment action. On appeal, Mattison argues the circuit court erred by (1) refusing to stay proceedings on the declaratory judgment action pending the appeal of her derivative action, (2) disregarding the key sentence in her severance agreement regarding the valuation of her membership units, (3) refusing to allow her to conduct critical discovery, (4) allowing MPS to apply a discount to the value of her membership units for lack of control and marketability, and (5) failing to award her pre-judgment interest.