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.
4-5-2004 - Opinions
In this Austin petition, the Court affirmed the circuit court's ruling that it had jurisdiction to accept three of petitioner's guilty pleas to second-degree burglary, but vacated a fourth guilty plea to second-degree burglary. The Court also denied petitioner's request to have his 1987 PCR hearing reconstructed.
This Court affirms the trial court rulings requiring that the bonds issued by All Out Bonding be estreated. All Out Bonding signed the bonds as surety, and is therefore responsible for the estreatment of the bonds.
This probate case involves the issue of whether appellant was entitled to certain joint account funds following the death of her husband.
In an application of the rerecidivst statute (section 17-25-45(B)), the Court held that Respondent's two prior convictions of armed robbery should be considered only one offense because Respondent committed the two offenses simultaneously, according to section 17-25-50.4-12-2004 - Opinions
The Court of Appeals erred in holding Brown's appeal from his conviction was timely. Because the appeal was not timely, the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
Attorney is indefinitely suspended for various professional conduct violations, including but not limited to, trust account mismanagement, failure to withhold taxes, and unprofessional conduct.
The Court held that both debtors were entitled to minimum statutory damages under S.C. Code Ann. § 9-507(1) (Supp. 2000). Additionally, the Court deemed (1) the practice of having customers sign both an unconditional sales contract and a conditional bailment agreement and (2) outright deception regarding credit approval SCUTPA violations. Finally, the Court held that the SCUTPA and UCC claims were not factually inconsistent.4-12-2004 - Orders
ORDER - Amendments to South Carolina Appellate Court Rules
This order makes amendments to Rule 403, SCACR, Rule 405, SCACR, and Rule 413, SCACR. Additionally, it adopts a new rule, Rule 423, SCACR, to govern Certificates of Good Standing.4-19-2004 - Opinions
This contract case determines the validity of a waiver of subrogation clause.
This case involves a review of a permitting decision for an industrial waste landfill in Newberry County, South Carolina.
Tamera Jean Bergstrom, who is now an adult, sued the defendant hospital for damages she allegedly suffered as a result of the hospital's alleged violation of policies relating to the adoption of infants. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the lawsuit, concluding the hospital owed a legal duty of due care only to the mother who was surrendering an infant for adoption, not to the infant. The Court of Appeals further held Ms. Bergstrom could not satisfy the requirement she prove her damages were proximately caused by the hospital’s alleged negligence.
Martin McIntosh was convicted of murder, kidnapping, first degree criminal sexual conduct, and criminal conspiracy in a joint trial with five co-defendants. The Supreme Court reversed McIntosh's convictions and granted him a new trial. The Court concluded the prosecutor violated McIntosh's due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment by cross-examining Petitioner at trial about the fact he did not present his alibi defense to police after he was arrested and read his Miranda rights.
Th e Court held there was no reasonable possibility that the result of respondent's trial would have been different had possible Brady material been released, and therefore reversed a Court of Appeals decision remanding the matter for a Bryant hearing.
The Supreme Court found there was no reasonable possibility that the result of respondent's trial would have been different had possible Brady material been determined material, and reversed a Court of Appeals opinion remanding the case for a Bryant hearing.
The issue on appeal is whether a pharmacy may be held strictly liable for properly filling a prescription in accordance with a physician’s orders.4-26-2004 - Opinions
This opinion concerns the rights and interests acquired by a successful bidder at a foreclosure sale. In addition, it addresses issues concerning conspiracy and the Rule Against Perpetuities.
This Court finds that petitioner’s trial counsel was ineffective in failing to make a motion for a Blair hearing given the evidence of petitioner’s incompetency.
On a PCR review, this Court grants petitioner a new trial because his defense counsel completely failed to challenge the prosecution's case.