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.
2-1-2002 - Opinions
This opinion discusses the family court's contempt power in juvenile cases.
2-4-2002 - Opinions
Dorothy Smith was convicted of misprision of a felony. Misprision of a felony is a criminal neglect either to prevent a felony from being committed or to bring the offender to justice after its commission, but without such previous concert with, or subsequent assistance of, him as will make the concealer an accessory before or after the fact. Smith was a witness to a robbery and murder. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Circuit Court's judgment, holding Smith intentionally misled the police during their investigation of the robbery and murder and concealed her knowledge of the crime.
The court of appeals affirmed the defendant's conviction for second-degree burglary, holding that, under the burglary statute, an "entry" is not limited to those situations in which the accused physically crossed the threshold of a building while without authority to do so.
This opinion vacates a conviction for armed robbery because the indictment alleged only an
2-11-2002 - Opinions
The South Carolina Statute of Repose bars actions for contribution under the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act brought more than thirteen years after the completion of an improvement to real property.
This opinion discusses common law marriage, particularly focusing on the couple's intent.
2-19-2002 - Opinions
This is a workers' compensation action holding that a spider bite is not subjected to the
In this Workers' Compensation case, the court addresses whether the "going and coming" rule applies to a volunteer firefighter who is responding to a fire.
Corey Reddick, an inmate of the South Carolina Department of Corrections, appealed his conviction for throwing bodily fluids on a corrections officer, a statutory offense under section 24-13-470. Reddick argued: (1) his indictment was fatally flawed because it did not identify him as an "inmate" within the charging portion; and (2) the circuit judge improperly limited his closing arguments regarding bias of the corrections officers who testified against him. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding: (1) under the "practical eye" analysis, Reddick's indictment was sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Circuit Court; and (2) comments made by the trial judge during closing arguments did not deprive Reddick of a fair trial.
2-25-2002 - Opinions
In this divorce action, Husband appeals the Family Court's: (1) inclusion of cash disbursements in the court's scheme of equitable distribution; (2) valuation of several marital assets; (3) failure to consider tax consequences in arriving at its award of equitable distribution; (4) identification of marital debts; and (5) award of attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed all components of the Family Court's order, except the portion regarding valuation of the marital home. The Family Court valued the home at $260,000 after taking judicial notice of
This opinion reverses a grant of summary judgment, finding that a factual issue was presented as to whether the refusal to pay an insurance claim was in bad faith.
Criminal case discussing admissibility of prior convictions for a crime similar to the one charged.
Lionel Cheatham was convicted of first degree burglary and sentenced to twenty years imprisonment. The Court of Appeals remanded, finding the trial court erred in refusing to conduct a pretrial hearing on identification issues.
This opinion addresses the appropriateness of summary judgment when the issue of proximate cause is in dispute and also the necessity of exhausting administrative avenues before pursuing a tort action against a third party.
This is an action on a promissory note. The crux of the case is the efficacy of the acceleration clause as juxtaposed to language in the note in regard to notice of default and right to cure. The Court of Appeals held the note signed by Middleton was ambigious. The Court remanded the case for a new trial on the issue of notice of default and right to cure.