Kenneth L. Childs, William F. Halligan, John M. Reagle and Keith R. Powell, all of Childs & Halligan, P.A., of Columbia, for Appellants. Michael J. Giese and Seann Gray Tzouvelekas, both of Leatherwood, Walker, Todd & Mann, of Greenville, for Respondent Anderson County Board of Education. Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster and Assistant Deputy Attorney General J. Emory Smith, Jr., both of Columbia, for Respondents The Governor, Lieutenant Governor and Speaker of the House of the State of South Carolina.

This is an appeal from the circuit court’s decision granting summary judgment for respondents. Appellants argue that Anderson County’s two-tiered school governance system violates the Equal Protection clause of the federal constitution and the South Carolina Constitution’s guarantees of no taxation without representation and uniform taxation within a jurisdiction.

Richard B. Ness, of Ness, Jett & Tanner, of Bamberg, for Petitioner. James D. Mosteller, III, of Barnwell and Stephen A. Spitz, of Charleston, for Respondents.

The Court granted a writ of certiorari to review Boyd v. BellSouth Tel.Telegraph Co., 359 S.C. 209, 597 S.E.2d 161 (Ct. App. 2004). BellSouth argues the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the special referee’s grant of summary judgment for BellSouth on Boyd’s causes of action to establish an easement implied by pre-existing use and by equitable estoppel?

Disciplinary Counsel Henry B. Richardson, Jr., and Senior Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Barbara M. Seymour, both of Columbia, for Office of Disciplinary Counsel. Desa A. Ballard, of West Columbia, for Respondent.

This is an attorney-discipline matter.

Linda C. McDonald and Beacham O. Brooker, Jr., both of South Carolina Department of Transportation and Robert L. Widener, of McNair Law Firm, PA, all of Columbia, for Petitioner. Robert Clyde Childs, III, of Greenville, for Respondent.

This case is on a writ of certiorari from the Court of Appeals. Tallent owns commercial property on Old Easley Bridge Road in Greenville. Initially, the property had immediate access to Highway 123 via Old Easley Bridge Road. SCDOT erected a fence along Old Easley Bridge Road, removed the traffic light from the intersection, and closed the road to through traffic. As a result, the access points linking Highway 123 and Old Easley Bridge Road were closed, severing Tallent’s access to Highway 123 via Old Easley Bridge Road. The circuit court and Court of Appeals held Tallent had suffered a compensable taking.

Carl F. Muller and Wallace K. Lightsey, both of Wyche Burgess Freeman & Parham, PA, of Greenville, for Intervenor/Appellant Hearst-Argyle Television, Inc. Rivers S. Stilwell, of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, of Greenville, for Intervenor/Appellant The Greenville News. Solicitor Robert M. Ariail, Deputy Solicitor Betty C. Strom and Assistant Solicitor Andrew Burke Moorman, all of Greenville, for Respondent The State of South Carolina. Assistant Appellate Defender Robert M. Dudek, of Office of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for Respondent Charles Christopher Williams.

Hearst-Argyle Television and The Greenville News appeal the trial court’s decision closing the courtroom during a pre-trial suppression hearing in a capital murder case.

E. Ros Huff, Jr. and Elizabeth F. Render, both of Irmo, for Appellants. Thomas Pinckney Bellinger and Stephen B. Samuels, both of McWhirter Bellinger & Associates, of Columbia, for Respondent.

This workers’ compensation case involves the issues of whether the commission erred by (1) finding claimant sustained an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment; (2) finding claimant suffered from a loss of earning capacity; and (3) finding an injury to claimant’s shoulders when such injury was not listed on his Form 50.

Kenneth E. Sowell, of Anderson, pro se Petitioner. Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh and Chief, State Grand Jury, Jennifer D. Evans, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

This case is on a writ of certiorari from the Court of Appeals. The issue on certiorari is whether Sowell was properly held in contempt for disclosing confidential grand jury information to his private investigator.

Assistant Appellate Defender Robert M. Dudek, of Office of Appellate Defense, of Columbia and Ernest Charles Grose, Jr., of Greenwood, for Appellant. Deputy Director Teresa A. Knox, Legal Counsel Tommy Evans, Jr. and Legal Counsel J. Benjamin Aplin, all of South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon, of Columbia, for Respondent.

The circuit court revoked Appellant’s probation and activated a previously imposed term of imprisonment. Appellant argues the circuit court erred in revoking his probation because (1) the condition of probation of not associating with a person with a criminal record is overly broad, particularly where the alleged violation resulted from Appellant driving a wounded man to the hospital; (2) the State failed to prove Appellant was in actual or constructive possession of a handgun and drugs found in an automobile; (3) Appellant should not be penalized for failure to report to his probation agent or complete a drug counseling program because he had been incarcerated for violating his probation; and (4) hearsay testimony offered by a police officer at the probation revocation hearing violated Apellant’s constitutional right to confront witnesses against him.

Phillip E. Reeves and Ronald K. Wray both of of Gallivan, White & Boyd, PA, of Greenville, Michael P. Horger, of Horger & Horger, of Orangeburg, J. Tracy Walker, IV, and E. Duncan Getchell, Jr., both of McGuire Woods, of Richmond, VA, for Appellant-Respondent. John E. Parker and John Paul Detrick, both of Peters, Murdaugh, Parker, Eltzroth & Detrick, PA, of Hampton, C. Bradley Hutto, of Williams & Williams, of Orangeburg, and Stacey Tarte Meyer, of Columbia, for Respondent/Appellant.

This is a wrongful-death action. Appellant/Respondent was found liable. The issues on appeal include: whether the trial court erred in denying Appellant/Respondent’s motion to transfer venue; whether the trial court erred in denying Appellant/Respondent’s motion to bifurcate the trial with respect to liability and punitive damages; whether Appellant/Respondent is entitled to judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial on punitive damages; whether Appellant/Respondent is entitled to a new trial because of the jury charge; whether Appellant/Respondent is entitled to a new trial because of the special verdict form; whether Appellant/Respondent is entitled to a new trial nisi remittitur; and whether the trial court erred in reducing the punitive damages.

Donald Bruce Clark, of Charleston, for Appellant-Respondent. Stephen L. Brown, Matthew K. Mahoney and Jeffrey J. Wiseman, all of Young Clement Rivers, LLP, of Charleston, for Respondent-Appellant.

Among other issues, the Court is asked to review the family court’s order in determining if an enforceable agreement between the parties existed.

Robert L. Widener, Celeste T. Jones and Andrew G. Melling, all of McNair Law Firm, PA, of Columbia, and Gayla S.L. McSwain, of McNair Law Firm, of Charleston, for Appellant. Eric G. Fosmire, of Collins & Lacy, of Columbia, Karl S. Brehmer and J. Austin Hood, of Brown & Brehmer, of Columbia, for Respondent.

The primary issue is whether a social host is liable to an under age drinker who suffers personal injuries after drinking and driving.

N. Heyward Clarkson, III, Charles F. Turner, Jr., and Sean A. Scoopmire, all of Clarkson, Walsh, Rheney & Terrell, PA, of Greenville, for Petitioner. George J. Kefalos, of Charleston, for Respondent.

The primary issue is whether a social host is liable to a third party who suffers personal injuries caused by an under age guest who consumed alcoholic beverages before driving.

William LeRoy Want, of Charleston, and Guyte P. McCord, III, of McCord, Bubsey and Ketchum of Tallahassee, FL, for Appellants. John M.S. Hoefer, Mitchell Willoughby and Noah M. Hicks, II, all of Willoughby & Hoefer, PA, of Columbia, John A. Massalon, of Wills and Massalon, of Charleston, Stephen A. Spitz, of Charleston and John M. Mahon, of Columbia, for Respondent.

This appeal is from the dismissal of a complaint against SCE&G for selling capacity on fiber optic cables in its electric easements without compensating the servient estate holders.

Chief Attorney Joseph L. Savitz, III, and Assistant Appellate Defender Robert M. Dudek, 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, Assistant Attorney General S. Creighton Waters, all of Columbia, and Solicitor Isaac McDuffie Stone, III, of Beaufort, for Respondent.

This is a capital case. The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in requiring Roberts to be present in a holding cell during the sentencing phase of trial.

Robert T. Williams, Sr., of Williams, Hendrix, Steigner & Brink, P.A., of Lexington, for Appellant. Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott and Senior Assistant Attorney General Norman Mark Rapoport, all of Columbia, and Solicitor Donald V. Myers, of Lexington, for Respondent.

Frye Brothers Bonding agreed to act as surety for the $10,000 bond of Robert F. McClinton in a criminal case. McClinton subsequently failed to appear for trial. The circuit court issued a bench warrant for McClinton’s failure to appear in February 1998. The circuit court found at a hearing in August 2005 that the conditions of the bond had been violated and ordered the bond to be estreated and forfeited, i.e., Frye Brothers Bonding and its insurer were ordered to pay $10,000 to Lexington County. Frye Brothers Bonding argues the circuit court erred because the three-year statute of limitations which applies in contractual matters applies in this case; therefore, the State’s action is barred as untimely.

Robert V. Mathison, Jr., of Mathison and Mathison, of Hilton Head Island, for Appellant. James B. Richardson, Jr., of Columbia, for Respondent.

Appellant appeals from two orders of the master-in-equity, one denying Appellant’s motion to set aside entry of default, and the other entering judgment against Appellant. Appellant argues that the entry of default should be set aside because service of process was improper, and that the master improperly applied to the judgment a contractual interest rate instead of the judgment rate.