James Edward Bell, III, of Georgetown, for Petitioner. Kristi Fisher Curtis, of Sumter, for Respondent.

The Court of Appeals affirmed a circuit court judge's ruling which quieted title to an abandoned railroad line in Respondents, who own land surrounding the strip of property on which the railroad line was constructed in the mid-1800s. The Supreme Court granted the petition for a writ of certiorari to consider Petitioner's arguments that the Court of Appeals erred because the predecessor of the railroad company which recently abandoned the line obtained a fee simple title to the land in the mid-1800s, meaning the transfer of the property by quitclaim deed to Petitioner in 1995 was lawful and effective.

Bradley A. Norton and Julie Elisabeth Mahon, both of Norton, Ballenger & Mahon, of Walhalla; Matlock Elliott and Joshua Howard, both of Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., of Greenville, all for Appellant. James G. Carpenter and Jennifer J. Miller, both of Carpenter Law Firm, of Greenville, for Respondent.

The central issue in this appeal is whether, in expanding sewer service, Oconee County remains limited to the funding methods specified in a 1976 referendum, held pursuant to S.C. Const. art. VIII, § 16, that authorized the county to provide these type services.

Special Assistant Solicitor Kristie H. Jordan, of York, for Petitioner. Leland Bland Greeley, of Rock Hill, for Respondent.

The Court is asked to determine if the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the State failed to establish probable cause that the property sought to be forfeited was traceable to illegal drug transactions.

Keith M. Babcock and William A. McKinnon, both of Lewis & Babcock, LLP, of Columbia, for Appellants. J. Lewis Cromer, of Cromer & Mabry, P.A., of Columbia, for Respondents Skylet Morris, et al. J. Dennis Bolt, of Bolt Law Firm, of Columbia, for Respondents Sherry Shealy Martschink, et al.

This is a challenge by court reporters whose status as State employees was affected by a reduction in force plan.

John K. Koon, of Koon & Cook, PA, and John S. Nichols, of Bluestein & Nichols, both of Columbia, for Appellants. Charles Craig Young, of Young, Miller & Braddock, of Florence, John C. Millberg, of Milberg, Gordon & Stewart, of Raleigh, NC, and James M Saleeby, Jr., of Aiken, Bridges, Nunn, Elliott & Tyler, of Florence, for Respondents.

This is a direct appeal in a FELA and negligence case stemming from a train derailment. After appellant presented his liability case at trial, the trial court granted respondents’ directed verdict motion. Appellant appeals, raising the issue of whether the trial court erred in granting a directed verdict and also various evidentiary issues.

Stephen P. Bates and Mary Margaret Hyatt, both of McAngus Goudelock & Courie, LLC, of Columbia, for Appellants South Carolina Association of Medical Professionals and South Carolina Orthopaedic Association. James G. Long, III, and Manton M. Grier, Jr., both of Nexsen Pruet, LLC, of Columbia, for Appellants Doctor's Care, et al. Monteith P. Todd, of Sowell, Gray, Stepp & Laffitte, L.L.C., of Columbia, R. Bruce Shaw and Alice V. Harris, both of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, of Columbia, for Respondents South Carolina State Board of Physical Therapy Examiners and American Physical Therapy Association. Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Deputy Attorney General T. Stephen Lynch, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Robert D. Cook and Senior Assistant Attorney General C. Havird Jones, all of Columbia, for Respondent Attorney General for the State of South Carolina. William J. Watkins, Jr. and Sandra L. W. Miller, both of Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, of Greenville, for Amici Curiae William Davis, Barry Cohen, Bruce Carlson and George Todd. Charles E. Carpenter and Carmen V. Ganjehsani, both of Richardson, Plowden, Carpenter & Robinson, PA, of Columbia, for Amicus Curiae American Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons.

In these consolidated cases, a circuit court judge ruled that a statute prohibits a physical therapist from working as an employee of a physician or group of physicians when the physician refers patients to the physical therapist for services. Appellants challenge the ruling on several grounds, including the interpretation of the statute; that the state Board of Physical Therapy Examiners' decision to begin enforcing the statute after the issuance of an opinion by the attorney general constitutes a new regulation that is void for failure to comply with the rule-making provisions of the state Administrative Procedures Act; and that the circuit court's interpretation of the statute violates the constitutional concepts of equal protection and due process.

James G. Carpenter, of Carpenter Law Firm, of Greenville, for Appellants/Respondents. Michael R. Hitchcock and Mikell C. Harper, both of Columbia, for Respondents/Appellants.

Among of things, the Court is asked to determine if the trial court erred in finding that the question presented constituted a nonjusticiable issue?

M. Dawes Cooke, Jr., and Phillip S. Ferderigos, both of Barnwell Whaley Patterson & Helms, LLC, of Charleston, for Petitioner. Thomas W. Bunch, II, and L. Jefferson Davis, IV, both of Robinson, McFadden & Moore, of Columbia, for Respondent.

This is a judgment-enforcement case. The Court granted a writ of certiorari to review Home Port Rentals, Inc. v. Moore, 359 S.C. 230, 597 S.E.2d 810 (Ct. App. 2004), in which the Court of Appeals affirmed a grant of summary judgment to Respondent Moore. The issue is whether the ten-year limitation period on execution of a judgment should be stayed for time during which the judgment debtor was absent from South Carolina.

Gregg E. Meyers, of Charleston, and J. David Flowers, of Greenville, for Petitioner. Andrew K. Epting, Jr., and Amanda R. Maybank, both of Pratt-Thomas, Epting & Walker, PA, of Charleston, for Respondent.

In this civil action, the Court of Appeals held that a claim for attractive nuisance requires the injured child to be attracted onto the defendant’s property by the nuisance which causes him or her injury.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, and Senior Assistant Attorney General William Edgar Salter, III, and Solicitor Warren Blair Giese, all of Columbia,for Petitioner-Respondent. Jack B. Swerling, of Columbia, for Respondent-Petitioner.

The Court of Appeals reversed Reese’s murder conviction on the grounds that the trial judge erred in failing to charge involuntary manslaughter and in denying a motion for a mistrial based on the solicitor’s argument asking the jurors to speak for the victim. The Supreme Court granted the State’s petition for a writ of certiorari to review those issues, as well as Reese’s petition for a writ of certiorari concerning three alleged errors not addressed by the Court of Appeals: (1) admission of hearsay testimony of marital problems between Reese and the victim; (2) admission of hearsay testimony that the victim was afraid for her life; and (3) failing to charge the defense of accident.

Beacham O. Brooker, Jr., of Columbia, for Appellant. Howard W. Pat Paschal Jr., of Price, Paschal & Ashmore, P.A., of Greenville, for Respondent.

This is an inverse condemnation case in which the SC Dep’t of Transportation closed the end of certain city streets, on which Respondent’s property abuts, in downtown Greenville. The purpose of the closure was to establish a controlled access line along a new ramp off of I-385. The trial court found a compensable taking, and a jury assessed $550,000 damages. SCDOT raises several issues on appeal, including the propriety of a jury trial in an inverse condemnation case, and whether the court erred in finding a taking. It also asserts the jury’s verdict was excessive, and that the payment of the verdict into the court stopped the running of post-judgment interest.

Kenneth B. Wingate and Paul D. Kent, both of Sweeny Wingate & Barrow, PA, of Columbia, for Appellant. Pope D. Johnson, III, of McCutchen Blanton Johnson & Barnette, of Columbia, for Respondent.

Appellant filed a claim for an elective share of her husband’s estate, and the probate court granted Appellant’s request for an elective share. The probate court also found husband’s revocable inter vivos trust was not illusory and could not be used to calculate or fund the elective share. The issues on appeal are whether: (1) the probate court erred in failing to decide this case pursuant to Seifert v. Southern National Bank of South Carolina; (2) the probate court erred in construing S.C. Code Ann. § 62-7-112; and (3) the probate court erred in failing to find the elective share statute unconstitutional.

Senior Assistant Attorney General James G. Bogle, Jr., of Columbia, for Office of Disciplinary Counsel. Reynolds Williams, of Willcox Buyck & Williams, of Florence, for Respondent.

In this attorney disciplinary action, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel challenges the Panel’s conclusions and its recommendation of a sanction.

Assistant Solicitor Vince Smith, of Columbia, for Appellant. Joseph M. McCulloch, Jr., of Law Offices of Joseph M. McCulloch, Jr., of Columbia, Desa Ballard and Jason B. Buffkin, both of Law Offices of Desa Ballard, of West Columbia, for Respondent.

The State appeals an order suppressing the results of a breath test because of a violation of § 56-5-2954 which requires record-keeping for testing devices.

Jim S. Brooks, of Spartanburg, for Appellant. J. Edwin McDonnell, of McDonnell & Noll, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

This is a direct appeal from the family court’s decision finding inter alia that respondent owed appellant $7,410.28 in child support. Appellant sought compounded interest on the past due child support, but the family court denied that request. Wife appeals, arguing inter alia that the family court erred by not ordering post judgment interest on the child support owed.