Emma I. Bryson, John O. McDougall and Peter G. Currence, all of McDougall & Self, of Columbia, for Appellant. Paul E. Tinkler and Lori Dandridge Stoney, both of Charleston, for Respondent. Jon A. Mersereau, of Charleston, Guardian Ad Litem.

This is an appeal from a family-court order finding that the parties formed a common-law marriage and awarding attorney fees to the respondent.

Jack M. Scoville, Jr., of Georgetown, for Petitioners. William B. Regan and Francis I. Cantwell, both of Regan & Cantwell, of Charleston, for Respondent Town of Port Royal. David L. Tedder, of Beaufort, for Respondents Rose Island Properties, LLC and George Stephanis.

This is an appeal from the court of appeals to determine whether Beaufort County and John H. Webber, a taxpayer and resident of Port Royal, have standing to challenge the annexation of Rose Island into the Town of Port Royal.

Charles M. Groves, of Chapman Harter & Groves PA, of Greenville, for Appellant. Robert C. Wilson, Jr., of Greenville, for Respondent.

This creditor-debtor case involves the issue of whether the trial court erred by failing to charge the law of independent contractor.

Gregory Milam Alford, of Alford & Wilkins, of Hilton Head Island, and Donald E. Jonas, of Cotty and Jonas, of Columbia, for Appellants. Monteith P. Todd and Robert E. Horner, both of Sowell, Gray, Stepp & Laffitte, L.L.C., of Columbia, for Respondents.

At issue in this case is whether State Farm, and its insurance agent Mallet, were under an affirmative duty to advise Homeowners to whom it provided flood insurance that there was a less expensive "Preferred Risk Policy" available to them.

Carl L. Solomon, of Gergel, Nickles & Solomon, of Columbia, and Tony Dessausure, of Dessausure Law Firm, of Columbia, for Appellant. J. R. Murphy and Adam J. Neil, both of Murphy & Grantland, of Columbia, for Respondent.

Appellant was shot multiple times inside a Columbia nightclub and brought a negligence action against Respondent. Appellant argues, among other things, that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment to Respondent because Respondent had a duty to protect Appellant from the criminal acts of a third party.

Chalmers Carey Johnson, of Charleston, for Appellant. Mark Wester McKnight, of Charleston, for Respondents.

This is an appeal from a circuit-court order granting the respondents summary judgment. The circuit court held that the appellant’s fraudulent-transfer claim was barred under South Carolina Code section 15-39-30.

W. Allen Nickles, III, and Dwayne T. Mazyck, both of Gergel, Nickles & Solomon, PA, of Columbia, for Appellants. Kenneth L. Childs, Allen D. Smith and Allison Aiken Hanna, all of Childs & Halligan, P.A., of Columbia, for Respondent.

At issue in this case is whether the school district is bound by promissory estoppel or contract with regard to the decision to offer financial incentives to teachers that become national board certified.

Kenneth P. Woodington, of Davidson Morrison & Lindemann, of Columbia, and Lynne W. Rogers, of South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation, of Columbia, for Petitioner. John S. Nichols, of Bluestein & Nichols, of Columbia, for Respondent.

This case involves the issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred by finding the failure of the Real Estate Appraisal Board to serve notice of its decision within the 30-day time period prescribed in S.C. Code Ann. § 40-60-150(C)(3) (Supp. 2004) deprived the Board of subject matter jurisdiction.

Richard A. Harpootlian, of Columbia, Michael G. Sullivan, of Columbia, A. Camden Lewis and Peter D. Protopapas, both of Lewis, Babcock & Hawkins, of Columbia, for Appellants-Respondents. James C. Gray, Jr., B. Rush Smith, III, C. Mitchell Brown and William C. Wood, Jr., all of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, of Columbia, for Respondent-Appellant. Thomas C. Salane, of Turner, Padget, Graham & Laney, of Columbia, for Respondent South Carolina Reinsurance Facility.

The issues in this case are, inter alia: 1)whether the filed rate doctrine bars judicial review; 2)whether a judicial determination of “at fault” is required when increasing premiums; 3)whether insureds can sue the Facility for a declaratory judgment; and 4)whether the plaintiffs had to exhaust their administrative remedies.

William E. Booth, III, of Columbia, for Appellant. Robert L. Widener and Robert W. Dibble, Jr., both of McNair Law Firm, PA, of Columbia, for Respondents.

The circuit court dismissed the Appellant's complaint for failure to state a claim against certain defendants, ruling the defendants were bona fide purchasers for value of real property without notice of an alleged title defect or adverse claim against the property. The Appellant argues the circuit court erred because the defense of bona fide purchaser had not been alleged in any pleading, the defendants had a duty of inquiry based on an examination of the title, the defendants may not claim protection as bona fide purchasers because the Appellant never had title to the disputed area, and the Appellant should have been given the opportunity to amend her complaint after it was dismissed.

Jeffrey Alton Phillips, of Phillips Law Firm, of Greenville, for Appellant. Sean Ashley Scoopmire, of Clarkson, Walsh, Rheney and Turner, of Greenville, for Respondent.

This is an appeal from an order granting the school district summary judgment in a contract action brought by a former teacher.

Bradford Neal Martin, William S. F. Freeman and Laura W. H. Teer, all of Walker Martin & Reibold, of Greenville, for Plaintiff. W. Andrew Arnold and Brian E. Arnold, both of Arnold & Arnold, of Greenville, for Defendants.

This case involves three certified questions from federal district court concerning whether a covenant not to compete may be reformed (“blue penciled”) in accordance with the parties’ New Jersey choice of law agreement so that Defendants, who allegedly breached the covenant, may be found liable for damages dating back until the initial time of the alleged breach. This case also involves a question of whether equity would permit this Court to extend the term of the covenant beyond its one year expiration date.

Beacham O. Brooker, Jr., of South Carolina Department of Transportation, of Columbia, and Robert L. Widener, of McNair Law Firm, of Columbia, for Petitioner. David B. Ward, of Horton, Drawdy, Ward & Jenkins, of Greenville, for Respondents.

This is an appeal from an order allowing a jury trial in the compensation phase of an inverse condemnation action.

Stephen E. Darling and Kari T. Hubbard, both of Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., of Charleston, for Petitioner. Robert A. McKenzie and Gary H. Johnson, II, both of McDonald, McKenzie, Rubin, Miller & Lybrand, of Columbia, for Respondent.

The issues in this case are: 1)whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the petitioner did not extinguish its common liability under the S.C. Contributions Among Tortfeaser’s Act; 2)whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding the Act unambiguous; and 3)whether there was a common liability between the petitioner and the respondent.

Attorney General Henry D. McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Robert D. Cook, Senior Assistant Attorney General C. Havird Jones, Jr., and Assistant Attorney General Elizabeth R. McMahon, all of Columbia, for Appellant. James Mixon Griffin, of Columbia, for Respondent.

State law enforcement authorities seized a Safari Skill video game machine and a magistrate ordered the machine destroyed after determining it was an illegal gambling device pursuant to applicable statutes. The machine's owner requested a jury trial on the forfeiture of the machine. The magistrate denied the request, but the circuit court reversed and remanded the case to the magistrate. The issue on appeal is whether the owner of a video game machine has a constitutional right to demand a jury trial in a civil forfeiture proceeding to determine whether the machine is an illegal gambling device.