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.
7-3-2013 - Opinions
The Court reversed an order in which the trial court held it lacked jurisdiction to enter an order ruling on appellants' Rule 59(e) motion related to their motion for enforcement of a protective order. The Court further held the trial court erred in its construction of the protective order.
Appellant challenges the Administrative Law Court's order affirming the South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole, and Pardon Services' decision denying her parole. Reversed.7-10-2013 - Opinions
The Court affirmed as modified the court of appeals' decision, and held that Petitioner was prevented from foreclosing on an invalid mortgage.7-17-2013 - Opinions
In this case, the Court construes section 62-2-302(b) of the South Carolina Probate Code to determine whether Appellant Jennifer H. Turner qualifies as a pretermitted child.
The Court holds the commercial general liability (CGL) policy at issue provides no coverage, pursuant to exclusions j(5) and n, when the insured's subcontractor damaged the insured's work while improperly performing touch-up cleaning at the conclusion of the job.
This is a direct appeal from an order of the Workers' Compensation Commission denying Temporary Total Disability benefits. Following Appellant Darren L. Pollack's injury on the job, his employer accommodated his work restrictions by providing him light duty employment. Thereafter, Appellant was discharged for violating a company policy by failing to report an accident involving an employer vehicle. Appellant filed a claim seeking Temporary Total Disability benefits. The Workers' Compensation Commission denied the claim, holding Appellant's termination and resulting incapacity to earn wages was due to his violation of company policy and not his work-related injury. The Court affirms.
The Court reversed the circuit court's order of dismissal, holding the Freedom of Information Act did not violate the First Amendment rights of speech and association as applied.
In this PCR case, the Court considers Petitioner's claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to renew an in limine motion to suppress drug evidence seized at a traffic checkpoint. The Petitioner contends the officer violated his Fourth Amendment rights by opening Petitioner's car door, which revealed the presence of crack cocaine and led to the discovery of additional drug evidence. The State asserts counsel was not ineffective and that the officer's action was justified by concerns for officer safety. We affirm as modified.7-24-2013 - Opinions
In this opinion, the Court affirms as modified the circuit court's order requiring that Petitioner be subject to satellite monitoring for the rest of her life pursuant to sections 23-3-540(C) and (H) of the South Carolina Code of Laws. The Court holds that although the statutory scheme's initial mandatory imposition of lifetime monitoring is constitutional, the lifetime requirement without judicial review is unconstitutional.
Centex International, Inc. and its affiliates appeal the Administrative Law Court's (ALC's) order upholding the South Carolina Department of Revenue's denial of its claim for infrastructure tax credits for the 2002-2005 income tax years. We affirm the decision of the ALC as we find the plain language of the Infrastructure Credit Statute, which is codified at S.C. Code Ann. § 12-6-3420 (2000), is clear that only a corporation may claim the credit. Because the partnership of Centex Homes incurred the infrastructure project expenses, it did not qualify for the credit. Thus, there was no credit available to pass through to its partners and, in turn, to Centex International.7-31-2013 - Opinions
This is an order definitely suspending a lawyer from the practice of law.
This is an order disbarring a lawyer from the practice of law.
This is an opinion disbarring a lawyer from the pratice of law.