Robert A. McKenzie and Gary H. Johnson, Jr., both of McDonald, McKenzie, Rubin, Miller & Lybrand, of Columbia, for Plaintiff. Kenneth Ray Raynor, of Templeton & Raynor, of Charlotte, NC, for Defendant.

The federal district court has certified two questions to this Court concerning equitable indemnification and vicarious liability.

A. Camden Lewis and Daryl G. Hawkins, both of Lewis, Babcock & Hawkins, of Columbia; Trent M. Kernodle, David A. Root, Christine Companion Varnado and Robert Bratton Varnado, all of Kernodle, Taylor & Root, of Charleston; and Michael M. Socha, of Charleston, for Appellants. William B. Regan and Frances I. Cantwell, both of Regan & Cantwell, of Charleston; Susan Jeanne Herdina, of Charleston; Timothy A. Domin, of Clawson & Staubes, LLC, of Charleston; and Charlton DeSaussure, Jr., of Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., of Charleston, for Respondents Robert B Kizer, Laura Cabiness and The City of Charleston, a Municipal Corporation. Paul A. Dominick and Harold W. Jacobs, both of Nexsen, Pruet, Jacobs, Pollard & Robinson, of Charleston, for Respondent James M. Miles, in his capacity as Secretary of State. Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Deputy Attorney General Treva Ashworth and Assistant Deputy Attorney General J. Emory Smith, Jr., all of Columbia, for Amicus Curiae State of South Carolina.

This appeal involves the incorporation of the Town of James Island. The trial court agreed with the City of Charleston that § 5-1-30(A)(4), under which the Town established the necessary contiguity by using marshes and waterways already annexed by the City, was unconstitutional special legislation. The Town appeals.

Robert William Mills, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles H. Richardson and Assistant Attorney General Deborah R. J. Shupe, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Warren Blair Giese, of Columbia, for Respondent.

This is a direct appeal of the defendant's voluntary manslaughter conviction (he was indicted for murder). The defendant alleges numerous trial errors, including erroneous admission of bullet casings, erroneous admission of a photograph of the victim which showed the victim's face, improper circumstantial evidence charge, and improper comment on the defendant's post-arrest silence during the solicitor's closing.

Stephen L. Brown and Randell C. Stoney, Jr., both of Young, Clement, Rivers & Tisdale, of Charleston, for Petitioner. A. Christopher Potts, of Hitchcock & Potts, of Charleston; and Lee D. Cope, of Speights & Runyan, of Hampton for Respondent.

The Supreme Court will consider whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the plaintiff intended to sue a particular defendant, where the plaintiff testified at a deposition that she did not want to sue the defendant and did not believe the defendant's actions had contributed to her injury.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles H. Richardson, Assistant Attorney General W. Rutledge Martin, all of Columbia; and Solicitor William Townes Jones, of Greenwood, for Petitioner. Assistant Appellate Defender Tara S. Taggart, of Office of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for Respondent.

This court has agreed to review the Court of Appeals' opinion addressing whether an Abbeville County Magistrate's Court had subject matter jurisdiction to try a Greenwood County offense. Also, whether failure to file a timely notice of appeal divests a court of subject matter jurisdiction.

Assistant Appellate Defender Eleanor Duffy Cleary, of Office of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for Petitioner. Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles H. Richardson, all of Columbia; and Solicitor John Gregory Hembree, of Conway, for Respondent

Is Petitioner, who was convicted of armed robbery, entitled to a new trial because during voir dire the jury's foreman intentionally concealed that he had been the victim of an attack, prejudicing Petitioner's right to strike him as a juror?

Charles E. Carpenter, Jr., S. Elizabeth Brosnan and Jeff Z. Brooker, III, all of Richardson, Plowden, Carpenter & Robinson, of Columbia, for Appellant. Morris D. Rosen and Donald B. Clark, both of Rosen, Rosen & Hagood, of Charleston, for Respondents.

This appeal involves the construction of a will.

C. Mitchell Brown, Kevin A. Hall, Jeffrey S. Patterson and Elizabeth H. Campbell, all of Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, of Columbia, for Appellant. Susan P. McWilliams and Angus H. Macaulay, Jr., both of Nexsen, Pruet, Jacobs & Pollard, of Columbia; Eliott R. Good, Michael J. Zaretsky and Michael W. DeWitt, all of Chorpenning, Good & Pandora Company, of Columbus, OH, and Gregory S. Coleman, of Weil, Gotshal and Manges, LLP, of Austin, Texas for Respondents.

This appeal involves the applicability of an arbitration clause in a contract between a Health Maintenance Organization and its service provider.

W. Thomas Lavender, Jr., of Nexsen, Pruet, Jacobs & Pollard, of Columbia, for Appellant. Robert Guild, of Columbia, for Respondents Involved Citizens of the Helena Community, et al. Samuel Leon Finklea, of Columbia, for Respondent SCDHEC.

This case involves a review of a permitting decision for an industrial waste landfill in Newberry County, South Carolina.

C. Mitchell Brown, Zoe S. Nettles and Elizabeth H. Campbell, all of Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, of Columbia, for Appellant. W. Jefferson Leath, Jr., and Timothy W. Bouch, both of Leath, Bouch & Crawford, of Charleston, for Respondents.

The issues in this case include whether a physician was the hospital's agent for purposes of obtaining a patient's informed consent, the propriety of punitive damages, whether jury instructions were correct, and whether a prior settlement was properly offset against this jury verdict.

W. Andrew Arnold, of Arnold & Arnold, of Greenville, for Appellant. Thomas L. Stephenson, of Nexsen, Pruet, Jacobs & Pollard, of Greenville, for Respondent.

This appeal involves three issues: (1) whether a non-compete agreement is enforceable; (2) whether an employer intentionally interfered with a former employee's prospective contractual relations; and (3) whether the employer violated the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Robert C. Wilson, Jr., of Greenville; and Richard R. Gleissner and Robert Phillips, both of Finkel & Altman, of Columbia, for Appellant. Andrew C. Barr, of Fulton & Barr, of Greenville; and Desa Ballard and Jason B. Buffkin, both of Law Offices of Desa Ballard, of West Columbia, for Respondent.

This malicious prosecution case raises questions of trial court error.

Charles L. Henshaw, Jr., of Furr, Henshaw & Ohanesian, of Columbia, for Appellant. David E. Dukes, Clarence Davis and John D. Martin, all of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, of Columbia, for Respondent.

This is a direct appeal in a pharmaceutical liability case--The issue is whether a pharmacist may be held strictly liable for selling an allegedly defective drug in accordance with a physician's prescription.

Robert Y. Knowlton, Franklin H. Turner, III, and B. Eric Shytle, all of Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., of Columbia, for Appellant-Respondent Rasmussen Iron Works, Inc. Frank R. Ellerbe, III, and Bonnie D. Shealy, both of Robinson, McFadden & Moore, of Columbia, for Appellants-Respondents Southeastern Marketing Group, LLC, Vari-Fuel Specialty Products, Inc and Champion Marketing Group. W. Duvall Spruill, of Turner, Padget, Graham & Laney, of Columbia, for Respondent-Appellant.

A jury awarded money damages to plaintiff Thermal Engineering Corp. after finding the four defendants breached their contracts, or committed a breach of contract accompanied by a fraudulent act, or violated the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act (UTPA). The defendants served as dealer representatives or distributors of plaintiff's expensive, infrared barbecue grills. At trial, the plaintiff alleged the defendants breached their contracts or violated the UTPA by secretly planning and developing a competing grill instead of using their best efforts to diligently promote the sale of the plaintiff's grill. On appeal, the defendants raise various challenges, including the sufficiency and competence of certain evidence, the qualification of plaintiff's damages expert, the award of attorney's fees to the plaintiff, and the finding of a violation of the UTPA. The plaintiff appeals the trial judge's decision not to triple the award of actual damages for what plaintiff asserts was a willful violation of the UTPA by defendant Rasmussen Iron Works.