Note: Beginning in June 2012, opinions will be posted as Adobe PDFs. You can download a free copy of Adobe Reader here.

The summary following each opinion is prepared to offer lawyers and the public a general overview of what a particular opinion decides. The summary is not necessarily a full description of the issues discussed in an opinion.

6061 - In the Matter of the Care and Treatment of Shawn Torlif Daily

Shawn Torlif Daily appeals his involuntary commitment under the Sexually Violent Predator Act, arguing the circuit court erred in admitting evidence of the results of a penile plethysmograph test. We reverse and remand.

6062 - Lowe's Home Centers, LLC v. SCDOR

Lowe's Home Centers, LLC appeals the administrative law court's order affirming the South Carolina Department of Revenue's (SCDOR) final agency determination that Lowe's owes additional sales taxes and penalties for materials sold in conjunction with installation services contracts during the specified audit period. The primary argument is that the ALC misinterpreted the applicable statutes and regulatory authority in finding the retailer's real property improvement contracts involved taxable retail sales of tangible personal property; however, Lowe's further challenges the ALC's findings as to whether SCDOR erred in calculating the materials' fair market value or violated the Equal Protection Clause by treating Lowe's differently than it treated other similarly situated contractors. We affirm.

6-20-2024 - Opinions

6063 - The State v. Shawn D. Custer

Shawn Douglas Custer appeals his conviction for receiving stolen goods valued in excess of $10,000 and sentence of seven years imprisonment. On appeal, Custer argues the trial court erred by (1) failing to grant his motion for a directed verdict, (2) instructing the jurors that his knowledge and possession may be inferred because the stolen property was found on real property under his control, and (3) failing to suppress global position system (GPS) evidence of the stolen property's movement. We reverse and remand for a new trial.

6064 - Associated Receivables Funding, Inc. v. Dunlap, Inc.

In this action to enforce a security interest, Classic Industrial Services, Inc. (Classic) argues the circuit court erred in finding it liable under South Carolina's Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), the common law theory of negligent misrepresentation, and the equitable theory of promissory estoppel. Classic further asserts the circuit court erred in calculating Associated Receivables Funding, Inc.'s (ARF) damages. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.

6065 - Kathleen Carter v. Joseph Carter

Joseph Carter (Husband) appeals the family court's Final Divorce Decree (the Decree) dividing the marital estate, awarding $2,700 per month in alimony to Kathleen Carter (Wife) and requiring him to pay Wife's attorney fees. Specifically, Husband argues the family court erred in entering the Decree because: (1) the family court lacked jurisdiction to divide Husband's nonmarital retirement accounts; (2) the dates on which the family court valued certain debts and assets were incorrect; (3) the values assigned to Wife's vehicle and jewelry are not supported by the greater weight of the evidence; (4) the amount of alimony awarded to Wife was excessive; and (5) the court erred in awarding fees to Wife. Husband also appeals the family court's order denying his motion for reconsideration. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

6-26-2024 - Opinions

6066 - Paul Roy Osmundson v. School District 5

Paul Roy Osmundson appeals the dismissal of his action under the Freedom of Information Act against School District 5 of Lexington and Richland Counties, arguing the circuit court erred in (1) granting a motion to dismiss for failure to request a hearing within ten days of service of the action, and (2) denying a motion to reconsider. We reverse and remand.

6067 - The Estate of Delila Parrott v. Sanpiper Independent and Assisted Living

In this wrongful death and survival action, Sandpiper Independent & Assisted Living-Delaware, LLC (Sandpiper) challenges the circuit court's order following a bench trial finding Sandpiper liable for the death and conscious pain and suffering of Delila Parrott and awarding $1,000,000 to Parrott's estate (Respondent). Sandpiper argues that the circuit erred in finding that (1) Sandpiper owed Parrott a duty, (2) Sandpiper's breach of that duty proximately caused the death of Parrott, and (3) Sandpiper failed to establish comparative negligence as a defense. Sandpiper also contests the circuit court's calculation of damages, arguing the award was wholly undue and speculative or excessive. We reverse.