A. Mattison Bogan, Timothy E. Madden and Reid T. Sherard, all of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, of Columbia, for Appellant. James T. McLaren and C. Dixon Lee, III, both of McLaren & Lee, of Columbia, for Respondent.

This is separate maintenance and support action where Wife appeals the family court’s order which disqualified her attorney based on a conflict of interest.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Senior Assistant Attorney General Norman Mark Rapoport, all of Columbia, and Solicitor Thomas E. Pope, of York, for Petitioner. Chief Appellate Defender Joseph L. Savitz, III, of South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, of Columbia, for Respondent.

The Court granted the State’s petition for certiorari to review the Court of Appeals’ decision in State v. Roach, 364 S.C. 422, 613 S.E.2d 791 (Ct. App. 2005), in which the Court of Appeals determined the trial court erred by allowing hearsay testimony in violation of the Confrontation Clause.

Deputy Director for Legal Services Teresa A. Knox, Assistant Chief Legal Counsel J. Benjamin Aplin and Legal Counsel Tommy Evans, Jr., all of South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole & Pardon Services, of Columbia, for Appellant. Arthur C. McFarland, of McFarland and Associates, of Charleston, for Respondent.

This case involves the question of whether the Administrative Law Court had jurisdiction to review the South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services denial of parole to Respondent.

Lionel S. Lofton and V. Lynn Lofton, both of Lofton & Lofton, of Charleston and Charles B. Macloskie, of Beaufort, for Appellants Lisa Cramer, et al. Richard S. Rosen and Andrew D. Gowdown, both Rosen, Rosen and Hagood, of Charleston, for Respondents An L. Grosshuesch, et al.

This is a consolidated appeal of several interlocutory discovery orders. On appeal, the parties dispute the application of the Attorney-Client and Fifth Amendment privileges to information sought in discovery.

Attorney General Henry D. McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Deputy Attorney General T. Stephen Lynch and Assistant Attorney General David Spencer, all of Columbia, for Appellant. Charles Preston Edwards, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

This case involves the issues of whether the Court of Common Pleas erred by finding that respondent’s 1979 kidnapping conviction did not involve a sexual offense such that he would be required to register as a sex offender and whether the Court of Common Pleas lacked subject matter jurisdiction to make that finding.

Ronald W. McKinney, of Greenville, for Appellant. Randall Scott Hiller, of Greenville, for Respondents.

The City of Greenville appeals from the circuit court’s decision that the city’s ordinance, which banned smoking in enclosed public places such as bars, restaurants and office buildings, is unconstitutional.

Appellate Defender Elizabeth A. Franklin, of South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General Shawn L. Reeves, Assistant Attorney General Michelle J. Parsons, all of Columbia, and Solicitor Donald V. Myers, of Lexington, for Respondent.

Appellant Metze appeals her conviction for breach of trust of $5,000 or more, claiming the trial court should have granted her a directed verdict.

A. Camden Lewis and Ariail E. King, both of Lewis & Babcock, of Columbia, and John M.S. Hoefer, of Willoughby & Hoefer, of Columbia, for Appellant. Vance J. Bettis and Shahin Vafai, both of Gignilliat Savitz & Bettis, of Columbia, and Ronald W. Urban, of Columbia, for Respondent

This is an appeal from the order affirming the ALC’s determination that: (1) the tax exemption provided to state retirees prior to Act 189 did not amount to a contract; (2) Anonymous Taxpayer’s claims that Act 189 amounted to an impairment of his retirement contract and amounted to a takings were without merit and barred by the statute of limitations; and (3) there should be no class certification.

Manton M. Grier and R. David Proffitt, both of Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, of Columbia, Ellis M. Johnson, II, H. Sam Mabry, III, and Courtney C. Atkinson, all of Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, of Greenville, for Appellant Palmetto Health Alliance. Thomas S. White and Lydia Blessing Applegate, both of Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, of Charleston, for Appellant CareAlliance Health Care Services. Robert L. Widener, Celeste T. Jones, Jane W. Trinkley and Kelly M. Jolley, all of McNair Law Firm, of Columbia, for Appellant Medical University Hospital Authority. William Douglas Gray, of Anderson, for Appellant AnMed Health. H. Sam Mabry, III, and Charles M. Sprinkle, III, both of Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, of Greenville, for Appellant Greenville Hospital System. Stephen D. Baggett and Steven M. Pruitt, both of McDonald, Patrick, Baggett Poston & Hemphill, of Greenwood, for Appellant Self Regional Healthcare. Marguerite S. Willis, Nikole Setzler Mergo and Daniel C. Leonardi, all of Nexsen Pruet, of Columbia, for Appellant Sisters of Charity Providence Hospitals. Richard A. Harpootlian, of Columbia, Robert Daniel Dodson, of Columbia, Gedney M. Howe, III, of Charleston, Michael Eugene Spears, of Spartanburg, A. Camden Lewis, Ariail E. King and Peter D. Protopapas, all of Lewis & Babcock, of Columbia, Kenneth C. Anthony, Jr., of Spartanburg, James R. Gilreath and William M. Hogan, both of Gilreath Law Firm, of Greenville, Patrick E. Knie, of Spartanburg and Andrew J. Johnston, of Spartanburg, all for Respondents.

This case involves the trial court’s order regarding the meaning of § 38-71-120 (2002) (repealed by Act. No. 332, § 31). Specifically, the hospitals argue the trial court erred in finding that they violated the statute by failing to offer plaintiffs uniform pricing discounts for hospital services.

Deputy Chief Appellate Defender for Capital Appeals Robert M. Dudek, of South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Senior Assistant Attorney General Harold M. Coombs, Jr., all of Columbia, and Solicitor Barbara R. Morgan, of Aiken, for Respondent.

Appellant challenges his convictions for felony DUI under a theory of accomplice liability.

Danny C. Crowe and R. Hawthorne Barrett, both of Turner, Padget, Graham & Laney, of Columbia, for Appellant. W. Allen Nickles, III, of Gergel, Nickles & Solomon, of Columbia, and Kelly Hunter Rainsford, of South Carolina Retirement System, of Columbia, for Respondent.

Appellant challenged the calculation of his retirement benefits. He appeals from the circuit court’s affirmation of the Administrative Law Court’s decision which upheld respondent’s determination that the calculation was correct.

Robert L. Widener, of McNair Law Firm, of Columbia, for Appellant. Raymond William Godwin, of Greenville, for Respondents. Stephen A. Yacobi, of Greenville, for Guardian Ad Litem.

In this direct appeal, the court is asked whether there is an exception to the jurisdictional requirement that a Notice of Appeal be timely served when the order terminates parental rights, and whether if appellate review is available the family court committed reversible error.

Zoe Sanders Nettles and Dwight F. Drake, both of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, of Columbia, for Appellant. Harry A. Hancock, of South Carolina Department of Revenue, of Columbia, for Respondent.

This case concerns the interpretation of the statute requiring gambling cruise ships to make monthly reports of winnings and losses.

Jay Bender and Holly Palmer Beeson, both of Baker, Ravenel & Bender, of Columbia, for Appellant. William A. Coates, D. Randle Moody, II, and Ella Sims Barbery, all of Roe Cassidy Coates & Price, of Greenville, for Respondent. Robert E. Lyon, Jr., and M. Clifton Scott, both of Columbia, for Amicus Curiae South Carolina Association of Counties.

This case involves a county council member’s attempts to access certain information from the county administrator. The trial court granted the administrator’s motion for summary judgment on the council member’s action for a writ of mandamus that sought to require the administrator to disclose the information.