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.
11-1-2004 - Opinions
Teresa Shadwell appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Respondents in this medical malpractice action. Shadwell alleged that her treating physician was negligent in (1) failing to discuss lab results with her, and (2) failing to report those lab results to her referring physician. The trial court dismissed both claims as being barred by the three-year statute of limitations. We concluded Shadwell’s first cause of action is barred by the statute of repose. However, her second cause of action is a novel issue in South Carolina and requires further factual development. Therefore, the trial court improperly granted summary judgment as to that issue.
Allied Signal, Inc. appeals from an order of the circuit court granting summary judgment to Windsor Green Owners Association, Inc. on its claim for breach of contract.
In this civil action, the Court reviews the discretionary authority reposed in a circuit judge under Rule 24(a), SCRCP, in a motion to intervene as a third party.
In this fee dispute case, this court affirms the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellant's attorney.
This case concerns two contracts for waste disposal services Sumter County entered into with Waste Management, Inc., and whether the award of those contracts complied with local and state laws requiring the competitive procurement of public services.
11-8-2004 - Opinions
In this felony driving under the influence case, Appellant argues the indictment was insufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction on the circuit court.
This appeal challenges the family court’s alimony award as excessive. This court finds the family court did not abuse its discretion in its award of alimony and its order is therefore affirmed.
11-15-2004 - Opinions
Appellant appeals his convictions for murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a violent crime. He argues the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of drug use and drug dealing as res gestae of the crimes.
11-22-2004 - Opinions
In this domestic matter, Wife appeals the family court's order, arguing the court erred in: defining a car as nonmarital property; equitably distributing marital property; failing to award alimony; and failing to award adequate attorney's fees. We affirm.
Ernest Steele filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, arguing the Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services was impermissably applying to him the statute requiring parole review every two years, thus violating the ex post facto clause. This Court affirms the circuit court's dismissal of the petition.
This case is an appeal from a decision of the Town of Hilton Head Island to grant a building permit. The Town’s Board of Zoning Appeals upheld the issuance of the permit, and, on appeal, the circuit court affirmed the Board’s decision. This court also affirms.
In this civil action, the parties dispute whether an incontestibility provision in a life insurance policy revives upon renewal of the policy following cancellation for nonpayment.
M. Richardson Hyman, Jr., appeals a special referee's decision that certain stocks passed to his father's wife through the residuary clause of his will and not his children through direct devise. Hyman argues his father's will contains a latent ambiguity and extrinsic evidence should be considered in its interpretation. We concluded that the language of the will was unambiguous; therefore, the decision of the special referee was affirmed.
This case involves the circuit court's denial of appellant's motion to proceed anonymously during the discover phase of civil litigation, which the court of appeals reversed.
11-29-2004 - Opinions
The appellant was convicted of murder and sentenced to thirty years imprisonment. The core issue is the efficacy of Rule 613(b), SCRE, and Rule 801(d)(1), SCRE, as applied by the trial judge in refusing to allow extrinsic evidence to impeach a police officer on whether he had an “agreement” with a non-testifying individual.