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.
3-6-2006 - Opinions
This case involves the issue of whether the trial court erred by enjoining the American Arbitration Association from following a particular set of rules when devising a list of proposed arbitrators.
The Court certified this case pursuant to Rule 204(b), SCACR. The Court held that the circuit court erred in enforcing a settlement agreement, because Rule 43(k), SCRCP, had not been satisfied.
In this class action lawsuit, the Court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment on the ground the plainitffs did not suffer any actual damages or injuries.
In this death penalty case, the Court reversed and remanded for a new sentencing proceeding. Because the State had placed Appellant’s future dangerousness in issue, the Court found the trial judge erred by failing to give a jury charge that life imprisonment meant until the death of Appellant without the possibility of parole. The Court also addressed the procedure for making the mental retardation determination in post-Atkins cases and the Court found the circuit court had subject matter jurisdiction.3-13-2006 - Opinions
The Court held that a cause of action that arose before the signing of a lease was not covered by the forum selection clause in the lease agreement.
The issue on appeal is whether a forum selection clause contained in the parties’ contract was sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over the defendant.
The Court affirmed the family court’s distribution of marital assets between the parties.3-13-2006 - Orders
ORDER - Rush v. State
3-20-2006 - Opinions
This is a civil conspiracy case brought by an at-will public official.
A wife, sitting in the driver’s seat of an idling pickup truck, was fatally injured when one of two shotguns accidentally discharged as her husband unloaded the weapons from the rear seating area of the truck. The Supreme Court, answering a question certified to it by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, held that the fatal injury did not arise out of the “ownership, maintenance, or use” of a motor vehicle pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 38-77-140 (2002). No causal connection existed between the vehicle and the accidental shooting. Therefore, the vehicle’s insurance policy did not provide coverage for the injury.3-27-2006 - Opinions
This is an attorney disciplinary opinion in which the Court imposed a two year definite suspension from the practice of law.