Assistant Appellate Defender Robert M. Dudek, of Office of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General William Edgar Salter, III, all of Columbia, and Solicitor Ralph E. Hoisington, of Charleston, for Respondent.

This case involves a murder and arson conviction and deals with various evidentiary issues.

Robert D. Moseley and Mark M. Trapp, both of Leatherwood, Walker, Todd & Mann, of Greenville and S. Jahue Moore, of Moore, Taylor & Thomas, P.A., of West Columbia, for Petitioner-Respondent. Frank A. Barton, of Reeve and Barton and H. Wayne Floyd, both of West Columbia, for Respondent-Petitioner.

Did the Court of Appeals correctly hold that an option to purchase real property creates an insurable interest?

Assistant Appellate Defender Robert M. Dudek and Assistant Appellate Defender Eleanor Duffy Cleary, both of Office of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, all of Columbia, and Solicitor Walter M. Bailey, Jr., of Summerville, for Respondent.

This capital case involves a Doyle issue, a challenge to the dismissal of a juror during trial, failure to charge robbery as a lesser of armed robbery, and the exclusion of rebuttal to victim impact testimony.

John F. Martin, of Charleston, for Appellant. William B. Regan and Francis I. Cantwell, both of Regan & Cantwell, of Charleston, for Respondent.

Appellants challenge a City of Charleston ordinance which prohibits all commercial establishments that serve alcohol from operating between 2 a.m. and 6 a.m.

Chalmers Carey Johnson, of Chalmers Johnson Law Firm, of Charleston, for Appellant. Charles E. Carpenter, S. Elizabeth Brosnan and Anthony E. Rebollo, all of Richardson, Plowden, Carpenter & Robinson, PA, of Columbia, for Respondent.

This case involves whether the trial court properly granted Respondent's motion for summary judgment under the doctrine of res judicata and under the applicable statute of limitations.

Kirby D. Shealy III, of Baker, Ravenel & Bender, L.L.P., of Columbia, for Appellant. John P. Ford, Jr. and Kristi F. Curtis, both of Bryan, Bahnmuller, Goldman, & McElveen, LLP, of Sumter, for Respondent.

This case involves whether the trial court erred in excluding under 403, SCRE, the amount accepted as full payment on a medical bill. The defendant wanted to use this amount to attack the reasonableness of medical expenses in a personal injury suit.

William O. Pressley, Jr., of Perrin, Perrin, Mann and Patterson, P.A., of Spartanburg, for Appellant. Robert A. McKenzie and Gary H. Johnson, II, both of McDonald, McKenzie, Rubin, Miller & Lybrand, of Columbia, for Respondent, Winfield W. Shecut. Angus Faust Carter, III, of Orangeburg, for Respondent, Marion A. Shecut, III

This appeal challenges, among other things, the equity court’s (1) calculation of damages for ouster and (2) awarding of attorney’s fees.

W. Andrew Arnold, of Arnold & Arnold, of Greenville, for Appellant. Ellison F. McCoy, of Haynsworth Baldwin Johnson & Greaves PA and D. Randle Moody, II, of Roe Cassidy Coates & Price, PA, both of Greenville, for Respondent.

This employment case raises issues regarding summary judgment and at-will employment.

Disciplinary Counsel Henry B. Richardson, Jr. and Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Barbara M. Seymour, both of Columbia, for the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. Thomas C. Brittain, of Hearn Brittain and Martin, of Myrtle Beach, for Respondent.

This case is a disciplinary action reviewing the Committee on Judicial Conduct's report.

John M.S. Hoefer and K. Chad Burgess, both of Willoughby & Hoefer, PA, of Columbia, for Appellant-Respondents. Joseph Dawson and Bernard E. Ferrara, Jr., both of Charleston County Attorney's Office, of North Charleston, for Respondents-Appellants.

This is a cross-appeal from a series of circuit court orders applying and interpreting the decision in Riverwoods, LLC v. County of Charleston, 349 S.C. 378, 563 S.E.2d 651 (2002).

M. Dawes Cooke, Jr. and P. Gunnar Nistad, both of Barnwell Whaley Patterson & Helms, LLC, of Charleston, Joseph Dawson, III, and Bernard Ferrara, Jr., both of Charleston County Attorney's Office, of North Charleston, for Appellants-Respondents. G. Trenholm Walker, Andrew K. Epting and Amanda R. Maybank, all of Pratt-Thomas, Epting & Walker, PA, of Charleston, for Respondents-Appellants.

This is a cross-appeal from a series of circuit court orders applying and interpreting the decision in Riverwoods, LLC v. County of Charleston, 349 S.C. 378, 563 S.E.2d 651 (2002).

Assistant Appellate Defender Eleanor Duffy Cleary, of Office of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant. Deputy Director for Legal Services Teresa A. Knox, Legal Counsel Tommy Evans, Jr. and Legal Counsel J. Benjamin Aplin, all of South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole & Pardon Services, of Columbia, for Respondent.

This statutory construction case involves the length of an allowable sentence for revocation of community supervision.

Harry Leslie Devoe, Jr., of New Zion, for Appellants. Lake E. Summers and Vinton D. Lide, both of Vinton D. Lide & Associates, of Lexington, for Respondent.

This is a Tort Claims action brought by 83 inmates who were employed by the SCDC Division of Industries Private Sector. They were initially paid .25 - .75 per hour as a "training wage" and were later advanced to a minimum wage of $5.15 per hour. They brought this action contending the SCDC was failing to pay them the prevailing wage for similar wages in the private sector, as required by S.C. Code Ann. 24-3-430 (d), and contending that while they were earning their "training wages," the SCDC was being unjustly enriched by being paid $2.07 per man hour by the private sector companies. Finally, the inmates challenged S.C. Code Ann. 24-3-40, which provides for disposition of inmate wages, as unconstitutional. The trial court ruled in favor of the SCDC and the inmates appeal.