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.
9-1-2021 - Opinions
This appeal concerns the ALC's decision to uphold DHEC's issuance of four permits and a certification necessary to construct a 2,380-foot steel sheet pile wall designed to combat the erosive forces of the Kiawah River along Captain Sam's Spit. While the Coastal Conservation League (League) raises numerous issues on appeal, we hold the ALC erred in three respects: in accepting DHEC's narrow, formulaic interpretation of whether a permit that indisputably impacts a critical area warrants the more stringent review normally accorded to such structures; in relying on the protection of Beachwalker Park to justify the entire wall; and, in determining the public will benefit from the wall based on purely economic reasons. Accordingly, we reverse.
The Court affirms in part and reverses in part the decision of the Public Service Commission regarding the most recent ratemaking application of Blue Granite Water Company, formerly known as Carolina Water Service.9-2-2021 - Opinions
In this declaratory judgment action, the Court finds the City of Columbia's ordinances mandating facemasks in public schools that serve grades K-12 are in direct conflict with Proviso 1.108 of the 2021-2022 Appropriations Act. Specifically, the ordinances' enforcement provisions unequivocally place responsibility to enforce the mask mandate on school personnel, forcing school employees to choose between violating either state or local law. Due to the direct conflict between Proviso 1.108 and the City ordinances that is created by the ordinances' enforcement provisions, the Court finds the City's ordinances are necessarily preempted by Proviso 1.108.9-8-2021 - Opinions
The question presented in this case is whether South Carolina law permits issues relating to child custody and visitation to be submitted to binding arbitration with no oversight by the family court and no right of review by an appellate tribunal. We believe the answer is clearly and unequivocally no and affirm the court of appeals' excellent opinion.