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.
6-6-2005 - Opinions
In this Workers’ Compensation case, claimant was denied compensation by the Single Commissioner and the Appellate Panel for an alleged carpal tunnel syndrome injury. The basis for the denial of compensation was the failure of the claimant to report an alleged injury in January 2001 until December 2001. The Workers’ Compensation Appellate Panel ruled that the claimant did not provide a reasonable excuse for her failure to give notice and the employer was prejudiced thereby. The Circuit Court reversed, concluding that the order of the Appellate Panel was not supported by substantial evidence in the record.
6-13-2005 - Opinions
In this civil appeal, appellants contend the trial court abused its discretion in finding Laurens W. Floyd, Jr. in contempt of its orders and requiring him to pay sanctions including legal expenses of the Respondent. Further, appellants aver the trial court erred in admitting certain letters into evidence in violation of the hearsay rule and the attorney-client privilege. Finally, appellants allege that the trial court erred in removing Laurens W. Floyd, Jr. as trustee of the charitable remainder trust.
In this cross-appeal from an action to enjoin the construction of a home, both the neighbors bringing the suit and the Buonfortes, the family against whom the suit was brought, appeal the special referee's order. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Affirms the decision to calculate claimant's compensation rate in the standard fashion, finding no exceptional reason to deviate therefrom, and declining to count weeks in which claimant received only partial disability compensation as "half weeks."
6-20-2005 - Opinions
In this workers' compensation case, Appellant argues the circuit court erred in finding a claimant's injuries compensable under the special "heart attack standard" for compensability.
In this appeal of a grant of summary judgment in a contractual dispute, Appellant argues error by the circuit court because trade custom and usage gave rise to a material issue of fact that should properly be determined by a jury.
In this appeal the state is asking this court to reverse the trial court's finding that under S.C. Code Ann. Section 56-5-2946 and 56-5-2950, a defendant arrested for felony DUI under Section 56-5-2945 is entitled to be informed by law enforcement that he has a right to refuse a breath test.
In this criminal action, a defendant appeals the enhancement of his sentence based on a prior drug-related conviction.
6-27-2005 - Opinions
This case involves a dispute between LLC members. Mallon appeals the master-in-equity's award of one-half of the proceeds from the sale of a particular piece of LLC property to Historic Charleston Holdings. He also appeals the master's refusal to conduct an accounting and the awards of prejudgment interest, attorney's fees, and costs. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
This case involves the construction of a life insurance policy, particularly the insured's right to change the benificiary when the insured does expressly reserve the right in the appication.
In this criminal appeal, this court is asked to decide whether a defendant forfeits his right to make the final closing argument to the jury when he offers only non-testimonial evidence.
Appellant presents three issues on appeal: (1) Did the trial court violate Appellant Deral Stanley’s right to due process by stating to the witness, Richard Stanley: The Court: Arrest this individual. Put him in jail. Leave him there. He’s either guilty by his own admission in trafficking in cocaine or he’s guilty of perjury. He’s to go to jail. Have him indicted first thing in the morning. I will not permit that sort of conduct in my courtroom. Now, he’s obviously, either guilty of trafficking in cocaine or he’s lying. You agree with that, Mr. Long? He can’t have it both ways? Mr. Long: That’s correct, Your Honor. The Court: Alright. He will remain in jail. Let the record reflect that I’m also putting him in jail tonight in the event we will need him for further testimony in the morning. He may be subject to recall, being under that I want to make sure he’s here for recall by either the State or the defendant. But I want him indicted in the morning. and by incarcerating Richard Stanley and allowing the State to recall Richard Stanley as a witness; (2) Did the trial court err in denying Appellant’s motion for directed verdict on the charge of trafficking in crack cocaine; and (3) Did the trial court err in denying Appellant’s mistrial motions?