Ronnie L. Crosby, of Peters, Murdaugh, Parker, Eltzroth & Detrick, PA, of Hampton, for Appellant. Elbert O. Duffie, III, of Bogoslow, Jones, Stephens & Duffie, PA, of Walterboro, for Respondent.

This case involves, among other things, whether a real estate agency is owed commission where seller allegedly negligently misrepresented the condition of the land.

Thomas H. Coker, Jr., Boyd B. Nicholson, Jr. and Joel M. Bondurant, Jr., all of Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., of Greenville, for Petitioner. James G. Carpenter and Jennifer J. Miller, both of The Carpenter Law Firm, of Greenville, for Respondent.

The Court granted certiorari to consider a Court of Appeals' decison finding this suit fell within the "public interest" exception to the mootness doctrine.

Assistant Appellate Defender Tara S. Taggart, of Office of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for Petitioner. Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh and Senior Assistant Attorney General Norman Mark Rapoport, all of Columbia, and Solicitor Robert M. Ariail, of Greenville, for Respondent.

This Court granted certiorari to review the Court of Appeals’ decision, which found that the petitioner did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in a friend’s apartment and therefore was not entitled to challenge the search under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution

Jay Bender and Holly Palmer Beeson, both of Baker, Ravenel & Bender, L.L.P., of Columbia, for Appellant. Cathy Lynne Hazelwood, of Columbia, for Respondent.

This case involves a challenge to the application and constitutionality of the confidentiality requirements of the Ethics Reform Act.

Bradley A. Norton and Julie E. Mahon, both of Fedder, Norton, Ballenger & Enderlin, of Walhalla, for Appellants. Rivers Lawton McIntosh, of McIntosh, Sherard and Sullivan, of Anderson, for Respondent.

The trial court granted restitution to respondent, under a theory of unjust enrichment, after respondent repaired a sinkhole. The sinkhole began on respondent's property and spread to appellants' adjacent property. Appellants argue that (1)respondents did not confer a benefit upon them; and (2) the trial court erred in apportioning the damages based on the percentage of the property affected rather than the value appellants retained.

Teresa L. Norris and Jeffrey P. Bloom, both of Columbia, for Petitioner. Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh and Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

Herman Henry "Bud" Von Dohlen (Petitioner) was convicted of murder and armed robbery, and sentenced to death in 1991. Petitioner appeals the denial of his application for post-conviction relief. The Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari to address (1) whether Petitioner's trial attorneys were ineffective in failing to object to the prosecutor's closing argument during the penalty phase of the trial that jurors should put themselves in the victim's shoes; and (2) whether Petitioner's trial attorneys were ineffective in failing to adequately prepare and present evidence that Petitioner suffered from a major mental illness at the time of the murder.

L. Sidney Connor, IV, of Kelaher, Connell & Connor, P.C. and Natale Fata, both of Surfside Beach, for Appellant-Respondent. James B. Van Osdell and Charles B. Jordan, Jr., both of Van Osdell, Lester, Howe & Jordan, P.A., of Myrtle Beach,for Respondent-Appellant.

A municipal taxpayer challenges the city's calculation of "rollback millage"; the city cross-appeals orders certifying a taxpayer class, and refusing to join the South Carolina Department of Revenue as a party to the suit.

Lucy London McDow, of Rock Hill, for Appellant. C. Rauch Wise, of Greenwood, for Respondent.

The Ray Company asserts that Ardis Roofing Company breached the warranty of suitability in failing to ensure that the windows it installed in a condominium complex were fire-rated according to local building codes.

Mary L. Arnold, of Mt. Pleasant, for Appellant. Steven L. Smith and William Mark Koontz, both of Smith, Collins & Newton, P.A., of Charleston, for Respondent.

This case involves the following issues: (1) Did the trial court err by finding respondent to be the prevailing party who was entitled to attorney fees pursuant to the amended version of S.C. Code Ann. § 29-5-10 (Supp. 2003)? and (2) Did the trial court err by not finding appellant was entitled to a set off from the award granted to respondent?

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka and Assistant Attorney General Melody J. Brown, all of Columbia, and Solicitor Thomas E. Pope, of York, for Petitioner/Respondent. Katherine Carruth Link, of Columbia, and The South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for Respondent/ Petitioner.

This case is on a writ of certiorari from the Court of Appeals. The case involves the admissibility of a pre-trial photographic line-up, and admission of the photos used in the line-up before the jury.

Daniel L. Draisen, of Krause & Moorhead, PA, of Anderson, for Petitioner. Amy G. Richmond, of Love, Thornton, Arnold & Thomason, V. Clark Price and Dana M. Lahey, both of Roe Cassidy Coates & Price, PA, all of Greenville, and Wade S. Weatherford, III, of Gaffney, for Respondent.

The trial court granted summary judgment to Petitioners, ruling a contract between the parties involving video poker machines was rendered void and unenforceable by local option law that took effect in 1995. The Supreme Court struck down the local option law as unconstitutional special legislation in 1996. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's ruling, relying on the principle that a statute which is found unconstitutional usually is deemed void from the date of its enactment. The Supreme Court, by writ of certiorari, agreed to consider Petitioners' argument that the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court's ruling.

Robin B. Stilwell, of Hunter, Tomaszek & Stilwell, of Greenville, for Appellant. Ralph Lee Gleaton, II, of Pfeiffer & Gantt, of Greenville; and John S. Nichols, of Bluestein & Nichols, of Columbia, for Respondent.

This case involves whether the damages awarded to Respondent were speculative or whether the damages were supported by the evidence. Also, whether Appellants should have been awarded damages for breach of contract.

Steven C. Kirven, of McNair Law Firm, of Anderson, for Appellant. Louisa Rice Lund, of Rice and Lund, of Anderson, for Respondent.

This case involves a question of whether a lifetime agreement that Petitioner and Respondent entered into upon Petitioner conveying Respondent the deed to her home should be incorporated as consideration of conveyance, and whether Respondent breached that agreement allowing Petitioner to now rescind and retain title to the property.

Francis T. Draine, of Columbia, for Appellant. Stephen L. Brown, Nancy B. Bloodgood and Carol B. Ervin, all of Young Clement Rivers & Tisdale, of Charleston, for Respondent.

This case involves the issues of whether the trial court erred by granting summary judgment to respondent on its breach of contract claim against appellant and whether appellant's entrance into the Teacher and Employee Retention Incentive (TERI) program superseded his previous resignation agreement with respondent.

Stephen L. Brown and John Hamilton Smith, both of Young Clement Rivers & Tisdale, of Charleston, for Appellants. James Edward Bell, III, of Sumter, for Respondent.

The defendant-physician appeals the trial court's decision to grant a new trial under the thirteenth juror doctrine to the plaintiff, who represents the estate of a deceased patient.