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.
12-11-2006 - Opinions
The court concludes that the false information contained in an affidavit leading to the issuance of a search warrant did not, in this case, justify suppression of evidence obtained as a result of the warrant.
12-18-2006 - Opinions
The plaintiff appeals a grant of summary judgment to the defendants in this medical malpractice case. The principal concerns in this appeal are (1) whether the trial court should have granted the plaintiff's motion for a continuance of the summary judgment hearing, and (2) whether the plaintiff presented sufficient admissible evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendants deviated from the applicable standard of care.
The South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles appeals from an order of the circuit court rescinding the Department’s suspension of Henry Claude Dismuke, Jr.'s driver's license.
DHEC appeals the circuit court’s order finding DHEC erred in imposing certain flow and load limits in permits. We affirm in part, reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand to the circuit court for the purpose of remanding to the DHEC Board.
In this workers’ compensation case, the employee settled a liability case against a third party. The employer and carrier contend that the workers’ compensation action is barred because the employee destroyed the subrogation rights granted under sections 42-1-550 and 42-1-560. The employee avers that the issue is novel and there is no prejudice to the employer/carrier in regard to the settlement of the third party action in this matter.
12-21-2006 - Opinions
In this domestic relations action, the Appellant posits several issues on appeal: (1) Did the Family Court err in construing the parties’ agreement on a reservation of alimony? (2) Did the Family Court err in awarding alimony to Respondent? (3) Did the Family Court properly hold Appellant/Husband in contempt? (4) Did the Family Court err in requiring Appellant to pay additional sums to Respondent as a result of the refinancing of the former marital home? (5) Did the family Court err in requiring Appellant to pay attorney’s fees and expenses for the Respondent, and in setting the amount of such fees and expenses required of Appellant at $28,037.45? (6) Did the Family Court err in including in its Order references to sidebar conferences which are not part of the record in this case?
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of defendant Claypoole's motion for a directed verdict on the charge of accessory before the fact to criminal sexual conduct with a minor in the second degree. Claypoole, mother of the minor victim, argued that while she allowed her husband to have sexual intercourse with her daughter from a previous marriage, she did not urge, aid, or advise her husband to commit the substantive offense. The Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that Claypoole's knowledge of her husband's previous misconduct as well as her actions and words of approval conveyed to her husband and daughter made her an active party to the substantive offense, thus warranting the denial of Claypoole's motion for a directed verdict.
Ligand Pharmaceuticals, Inc. appeals the circuit court's order awarding wages, treble damages, and attoney's fees to Richard Ross for Ligand's breach of an employment contract, violation of the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act, and violation of public policy.
In this TPR case the Family Court terminated Jane Doe's parental rights, finding: (1) she has a diagnosable condition not likely to change within a reasonable time that makes her unlikely to provide minimally acceptable care for the child and (2) termination of her parental rights is in the child’s best interest. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
James Pondesta White was convicted of distribution of crack cocaine and sentenced to eight years. White appeals, asserting the trial court abused its discretion by not declaring a mistrial after the jury listened to a tape of an in camera hearing that was mistakenly played in the place of trial testimony that the jury requested. We affirm.
The court concludes that the constitutional right of an accused to confront the witnesses against him, as fully explained in the United States Supreme Court case of Crawford v. Washington, does not apply in a probation revocation proceeding.