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.
4-7-2003 - Opinions
The court construes S.C. Code Ann. section 38-53-100(D) to authorize the clerk of court to collect only $150 per year per individual rather than $150 per year per license held by a bondsman.
Jimmy Dodd was indicted for the armed robbery of a convenience store. The trial judge denied his motion for directed verdict, and the jury found Dodd guilty of armed robbery. Dodd appeals, arguing the state failed to prove the corpus delecti of armed robbery aliunde his confession.
4-14-2003 - Opinions
In this medical malpractice case, the court addresses the issue of qualification of an expert witness based on queries relating to board certification. The court concludes that Fields was prejudiced by the exclusion of the board certification questions. Additionally, the court examined the issue of the use of a Learned Treatise for cross-examination purposes and concludes the circuit court committed reversible error in disallowing the use of the Learned Treatise during cross-examination of F. Simons Hane, M.D., Respondent.
This case involves whether an insurance company must offer UIM coverage in amounts lower than the statutory minimum liability limits.
This appeal concerns the sufficiency of an indictment for criminal domestic violence of a high and aggravated nature.
In this medical malpractice case, the issues are: (1) The applicability of res judicata and collateral estoppel based on identity of the parties in a prior action and a contention that the issues in the prior action were not adjudicated on the merits; (2) Contentions by appellant that the trial judge erred in granting the motion to dismiss because the prior action was dismissed with the consent of counsel and the minor plaintiff did not receive adequate and fair representation of his interests.
This opinion affirms the family court's decision declining to terminate or reduce Father's unallocated support obligation based on child's graduation from college and the award of partial attorney fees to Mother.
The criminal case involves whether the State's use of preemptory jury strikes was in violation of Batson v. Kentucky and whether an indictment for attempted burglary was sufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction on the circuit court.
The court ruled that an alleged withdrawal agreement did NOT contain a non-reliance caluse. Further, the court held the withdrawal agreement is subject to the parol evidence rule on the issues of fraud and negligent misrepresentation.
4-21-2003 - Opinions
This case considers whether evidence of an uncharged act of criminal sexual conduct falls within the common scheme or plan exception to State v. Lyle, 125 S.C. 406, 118 S.E. 803.
In this criminal appeal, Dunbar argues the trial court erred in failing to suppress evidence based on two allegedly impermissible searches, one incident to his arrest, and the other pursuant to a search warrant.
The issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred by admitting a taped conversation between Aragon and one of the victims. We hold that the State need not establish a chain of custody was not necessary since the tape was otherwise authenticated Affimed.
4-28-2003 - Opinions
Murphy appeals from a circuit court order denying his request for a witness fee and mileage after attending a deposition in an action in which Murphy was the plaintiff.
Margaret Murray sued Bank of America, formerly known as NationsBank, (Bank) alleging it was negligent when it allowed an imposter to open an account in her name. The Bank appeals, arguing the trial court erred in (1) holding the Bank owed a duty of care to Murray; (2) in denying its motion for a new trial absolute; (3) in issuing supplemental jury instructions; and (4) in allowing Murray's counsel to make improper remarks to the jury during closing.
This criminal case involves whether the search warrant, which led to the discovery of illegal drugs, was based on probable cause.