Darrell T. Johnson, Jr., of Hardeeville, James B. Richardson, Jr., of Columbia, Matthew W. H. Wessler, of Washington, DC and Leslie A. Brueckner, of Oakland, CA, for Appellant. Curtis L. Ott and Carmelo B. Sammataro, both of Turner, Padget, Graham & Laney, P.A., of Columbia, and Gregory G. Garre, of Latham & Watkins, LLP, of Washington, DC, for Respondent. William C. Wood, Jr., of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, of Columbia, for Amicus Curiae, Product Liability Advisory Council. Gray T. Culbreath and Brian A. Comer, of Collins & Lacy, of Columbia, and David B. Salmons and Bryan M. Killian, of Bingham McCutchen, LLP, of Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. Adam T. Silvernail, of Columbia, Patrick M. Ardis, of Wolff Ardis, P.C., of Memphis, Tennessee and Larry E. Coben, of Anapol Schwartz, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Amicus Curiae, The Center for Auto Safety.

On remand, the Court reconsiders its opinion in Priester v. Cromer, 388 S.C. 425, 697 S.E.2d 567 (2010), in light of Williamson v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc., 131 S.Ct. 1131 (2011).

John D. Elliott, of Columbia, and A. Camden Lewis and Ariail E. King, both of Lewis & Babcock, LLP, of Columbia, for Appellant. James T. McLaren and C. Dixon Lee, III, of McLaren & Lee, of Columbia, for Respondent.

In this action for divorce and equitable division, Appellant Cheryl Burch ("Wife") appealed (1) the family court's valuation of certain real properties at the filing date for divorce rather than the buyout date of the properties; (2) the denial of a request for contribution from Thomas Burch ("Husband") to their child's private school education; (3) the denial of reimbursement for delinquent interest payment advanced by Wife; (4) the amount of Husband's child support obligation; and (5) the assessment of attorney's fees against Wife for her delay and non–cooperation.

John Robert Murphy and Jeffrey C. Kull, of Murphy & Grantland, of Columbia, for Plaintiff. Cory H. Fleming, of Moss, Kuhn & Fleming, P.A., of Beaufort, and Bert Glenn Utsey, III, of Peters Murdaugh Parker Eltzroth & Detrick, PA, of Walterboro, and Mark D. Ball, of Peters, Murdaugh, Parker, Eltzroth & Detrick, PA, of Hampton, for Defendant.

This Court certified three questions from the Federal District Court addressing (1) whether a criminal acts exclusion in a homeowners insurance policy is ambiguous or against public policy to the extent it does not require a showing of intent and whether involuntary manslaughter is an act that is criminal in nature pursuant to the policy; (2) whether the exclusion for the criminal act of “an insured” excludes coverage for other insureds under the policy for their alleged negligence arising from the criminal conduct; and (3) whether a guilty plea to involuntary manslaughter alone establishes the presence of a criminal act without the necessity of the insurer independently proving criminal conduct by the insured.

Appellate Defender LaNelle Cantey DuRant, of South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, of Columbia, for Petitioner. Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott and Senior Assistant Attorney General Harold M. Coombs, Jr., of Office of the Attorney General, of Columbia, and Solicitor Kevin Scott Brackett, of York, for Respondent.

This Court granted certiorari to review the Court of Appeals’ opinion in State v. Giles, Op. No. 2010-UP-154 (S.C. Ct. App. filed Feb. 23, 2010). Petitioner argues the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial judge’s decision to quash the original jury after a Batson hearing.

John C. von Lehe, Jr. and Bryson M. Geer, of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, of Charleston, for Appellant. Adam N. Marinelli, Sean G. Ryan and Milton G. Kimpson, of Columbia, for Respondent.

In this appeal from the Administrative Law Court, Appellant argues the lower court erred by finding it was not entitled to certain income tax deductions and by failing to find section 12-6-2220 is unconstitutional as applied.

Chief Appellate Defender Robert M. Dudek and Senior Appellate Defender Joseph L. Savitz, III, of South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh and Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, of Office of the Attorney General, of Columbia, and Solicitor William Walter Wilkins, III, of Greenville, for Respondent.

In this capital case, Jerry Buck Inman appeals his plea of guilty and sentence of death. Initially, Inman challenges the judge's acceptance of his guilty plea as he contends it was conditional in that his defense counsel maintained that Inman was entitled to be sentenced by a jury despite his plea of guilty. Additionally, Inman asserts the judge erred in addressing his allegations of prosecutorial misconduct during the sentencing proceedings. Specifically, Inman claims the judge erred in the following respects: (1) refusing to allow defense counsel to cross-examine the Solicitor and Deputy Solicitor on the issue of prosecutorial misconduct; and (2) declining to recuse the Solicitor's Office from any further involvement in the case and declining to grant a mistrial despite a finding of prosecutorial misconduct, which was based on the Solicitor's treatment of the defense's expert witness.

James L. Hills and Carolyn R. Hills, of Hills & Hills, of Myrtle Beach, for Petitioner. Randall K. Mullins, of North Myrtle Beach, for Respondent.

In this domestic relations action, this Court granted certiorari to review the opinion of the Court of Appeals. Petitioner, wife argues the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the family court erred in several aspects, including the matter of divorce, property division, alimony, and the award of attorneys’ fees to respondent, husband.

Deputy Chief Appellate Defender Wanda H. Carter, of South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, of Columbia and Christopher D. Scalzo, of Greenville, for Appellant. Assistant Chief Legal Counsel J. Benjamin Aplin and Legal Counsel Tommy Evans, Jr., of Columbia, for Respondent.

Jennifer Dykes appeals the imposition of mandatory satellite monitoring on her pursuant Section 23-3-540(C) of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2010). In particular, she alleges mandatory monitoring violates her substantive and procedural due process rights, the ex post facto clause, her guarantee of equal protection, and her right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

Disciplinary Counsel Lesley M. Coggiola and Deputy Disciplinary Counsel Barbara M. Seymour, both of Columbia, for Office of Disciplinary Counsel. Matthew Edward Davis, of Columbia, pro se Respondent.

This is an attorney disciplinary matter.