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.

27912 - Anderson County v. Preston

In this appeal arising out of Anderson County Council's approval of a severance agreement, the Court vacates the decision of the Court of Appeals; finds the Severance Agreement invalid due to the County's lack of a quorum; and remands to the circuit court to determine the exact amount that Preston must refund the County.

27913 - Felder v. State

A jury convicted Antrell Felder of murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a violent crime. Following a hearing on Felder's application for post-conviction relief ("PCR"), the PCR court issued an order denying and dismissing Felder's application. We find the PCR court erred in determining trial counsel was not ineffective. Accordingly, we reverse the PCR court's decision and remand this matter to the court of general sessions for a new trial.

27914 - Cothran v. State Farm

Section 38-77-144 of the South Carolina Code (2015) provides that no-fault personal injury protection (PIP) insurance coverage "is not subject to a setoff." This appeal requires us to consider whether section 38-77-144 prohibits an automobile insurance carrier from reducing its obligation to pay PIP benefits to its insured by the amount of workers' compensation benefits the insured received for medical expenses. We hold that it does.

27915 - Pantovich v. State

In this post-conviction relief (PCR) matter, we examine South Carolina's longstanding good character charge as we determine whether the PCR court erred when it found appellate counsel for Respondent Vladimir Pantovich ineffective for failing to raise a meritorious issue on direct appeal. The PCR court granted relief based on appellate counsel's failure to argue that the trial court erred by refusing to give such a charge, which counsel had requested at trial. While we agree that a portion of the charge Pantovich requested is improper, we nonetheless affirm because of the retrospective nature of PCR review.

27916 - In the Matter of Ivon Keith McCarty

After accepting an Agreement for Discipline by Consent entered into between Respondent and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel in which Respondent admitted his actions violated the South Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct, the Court publicly reprimanded Respondent and ordered he pay costs.