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.
10-10-2018 - Opinions
In this construction defect case, Marick Home Builders, LLC (Marick) and Rick Thoennes appeal several of the trial court's orders arguing the trial court erred by (1) failing to give the jury certain charges; (2) failing to grant their directed verdict motions; (3) improperly limiting their closing argument; (4) amalgamating the interests of certain defendants; (5) failing to require Respondents to elect a remedy; and (6) failing to properly set off settlements Respondents received prior to trial. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
In this construction defect case, Bostic Brothers Construction, Inc. (Bostic) appeals several of the trial court's orders. Bostic argues the trial court erred by (1) denying its motion for a directed verdict based on the statute of limitations, (2) improperly setting off portions of the jury's verdict, and (3) denying its motion for a new trial. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
10-17-2018 - Opinions
John M. McIntyre and Silver Oak Land Management, LLC (collectively Appellants) appeal the order of the circuit court affirming a $540,000 civil penalty imposed upon them by the Securities Commissioner of South Carolina. Appellants claim the Commissioner denied them procedural due process by not promulgating rules for the hearing procedure. Because the Commissioner's administrative enforcement action deprived Appellants procedural due process, we reverse and vacate.
David Alan White appeals his convictions of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature and possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime. On appeal, White argues the trial court erred by (1) indicating he could not pursue both the defense of accident and self-defense, (2) excluding and limiting his testimony about Joseph Johnson's statements, (3) denying his request for a jury instruction on self-defense, and (4) denying his request for a lesser-included instruction on second-degree assault and battery. We reverse.