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.
12-8-2003 - Opinions
In this legal malpractice action, the court reviews the federal law of disclaimer relating to estates in the context of legal malpractice precedent.
This civil action involves a taxpayer alleging Greenville County failed to comply with its county ordinances governing the procurement of construction services for (1) the Roads 2000 project, (2) the Roads 2001 project, and (3) the Forensics Lab project.
In this condemnation action, SCDOT appeals the trial court's ruling that the landowner was entitled to litigation expenses as the prevailing party.
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.
Williamsburg Water commenced this action against the County seeking: (1) a determinationof Williamsburg Water's right to provide water and sewer service within designated unincorporated areas in Williamsburg County, (2) damages in tort based on the County's actions, and (3) injunctive relief. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the County, finding that Williamsburg Water did not have the exculsive right to provide service to the designated areas, and that Williamsburg Water's cause of action in tort was barred by the South Carolina Tort Claims Act and the statute of limitations. Williamsburg Water appeals.
This case considers the application of Rule 613(b), SCRE, to resolve purported inconsistencies in testimony from a criminal trial.
The Court of Appeals found that First Union did not give the Kirkmans an impliedly warrant the habitability when it sold a home to them, because it was acting primarily as a lender rather than a seller or developer.
This appeal concerns a third-party action against a social host for serving alcohol to an underage drinker.
In this action for contribution arising from several prior related negligence claims, the defendant, Parks Auto Sales, Service & Salvage appeals the award of damages to the plaintiff, G&P Trucking, in the amount of Park Auto's pro rata share of the common liability in the underlying claims.
12-15-2003 - Opinions
United Services Automobile Association ("USAA") brought this declaratory judgment action against Lesli Litchfield and Vernon Litchfield seeking a declaration that no basis exists for reforming Lesli Litchfield's automobile insurance policy to include underinsured motorist ("UIM") coverage. The trial court granted USAA's motion for summary judgment. The Litchfields appeal, contending USAA failed to make a meaningful offer of UIM coverage.
This case involves whether the circuit court is divested of subject matter jurisdiction when indictments for assaulting an officer and pointing a firearm are amended so as to change the identity of the victim.
Virginia Burgess appeals from her conviction for murder and possession of a weapon during a violent crime, arguing the trial court abused its discretion in failing to order a psychiatric examination to determine her competency to stand trial.
In this personal injury case, the trial court granted a post-trial motion for a new trial nisi additur. The trial court erred by granting the motion without stating compelling reasons.
Smith brought an paternity action against Doe on behalf of her un-emancipated adult daughter. A paternity test established Doe was the father, and the family court ordered him to pay child support. Doe appeals, arguing (1) the paternity test was barred by the statute of limitations, and (2) if the action was not barred, the amount of child support awarded was excessive.
12-22-2003 - Opinions
"This case involves whether an insurance company made a meaningful offer of underinsured motorist coverage to its insured."
This civil action involves a novel issue in regard to liability of a golf course for an errant golf ball striking an innocent person on the roof of a residence adjacent to golf course property.
This case involves whether a plaintiff’s medical malpractice claim involves a “vaccine-related injury,” requiring filing of an administrative claim under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 300aa-1 to 300aa-34, prior to filing suit in state court.