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
Following rehearing, the Court affirmed the trial judge’s decision to place insurance proceeds into Special Needs Trusts before reimbursing Medicaid.
The Supreme Court granted both parties' certiorari petitions to consider two Court of Appeals' decisions in this divorce matter. The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the award of the marital home to Respondent/Petitioner (Wife) in equitable distribution of the marital estate, and discussed the distinction between awarding the home as an incident of support and in equitable distribution. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' conclusion that Wife's credit card debt incurred after marital litigation began was not a marital debt subject to apportionment. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals's conclusion that Petitioner/Respondent (Husband) was not required to secure an alimony award with a life insurance policy naming Wife as the beneficiary, and further clarified the standards and analysis used to decide this issue. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision requiring Husband to pay Wife's attorney's fees.
This is a disciplinary opinion definitely suspending an attorney.
This is a disciplinary opinion in which the Court publicly reprimands an attorney
Issue on certiorari is whether an Ohio conviction for abduction qualifies as a prior violent crime for purposes of parole eligibility under S.C. Code §§ 24-21-640 and 16-1-60.
This case involves the issue of whether the trial court erred by finding Builder to be the prevailing party who was entitled to attorney's fees pursuant to the amended version of S.C. Code Ann. sec. 29-5-10 (Supp. 2003).
In this case, the Court affirmed the decision of the family court to terminate Appellant’s parental rights.
This case involves the issues of whether the Court of Appeals erred by (1) finding Buyer did not have a duty to investigate the truthfulness of an alleged misrepresentation by Seller's real estate agent; and (2) finding a certain paragraph in a purchase contract to be a merger clause rather than a non-reliance clause.
This case involves the issues of whether the appeal should be dismissed as unappealable and whether the circuit court erred by finding S.C. Code Ann. sec. 15-9-430 (2005) inapplicable to service of process on one of the parties.6-6-2005 - Orders
ORDER - State v. Roberts
The Court in this order holds an appellant has no federal or state constitutional right to proceed pro se on direct appeal of a criminal conviction.6-13-2005 - Opinions
In this case, the Court concluded, a defendant’s possible commitment under the Sexually Violent Predator Act is a collateral consequence of sentencing pursuant to a guilty plea or a conviction. Therefore counsel was under no obligation to inform Petitioner of possible commitment under the SVPA and the defendant was properly denied post-conviction relief.6-20-2005 - Opinions
The Court held the special referee erred in denying Southern Finance’s Rule 60 motion to set aside the default judgment on the ground the summons and complaint were not properly
This case involves the issue of whether a school district properly allowed an upward adjustment to a contractor's construction bid, where the contractor did not discover the error in its bid until after the bid was opened.
In this case, Appellant claimed the circuit court erred in dismissing her appeal from an order of the probate court. This Court affirmed the dismissal, finding Appellant’s notice of appeal from the probate court order was not properly filed in the circuit court within the time period prescribed by South Carolina Code section 62-1-308 (Supp. 2004).
The Court affirmed the appeal brought by the plaintiff in this railroad crossing case, but reversed the jury verdict against the railroad and remanded.6-27-2005 - Opinions
In this case, the majority concluded the PCR judge correctly interpreted the escape statute to mandate the imposition of a consecutive sentence to other simultaneously imposed sentences for a pre-trial detainee.
ORDER - In the Matter of Johnny W. Rabb, Jr.
This is an order placing an attorney on interim suspension.