![]() |
September 2011 |
NEXT
![]() |
The summary below each case is prepared to offer lawyers and the public a general overview of what issues are included in a case which will be argued. The summary is not a limit on what issues a party to a case may present at oral argument.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011 | |
09:00 a.m. | |
5134 Mary Robyn Priester, Individually and as Natural Mother/Next of Kin, and Personal Representative of the Estate of James Lloyd Priester, Appellant, v. Preston Williams Cromer, Stage Light Management, d/b/a Showgirls(z) and Lloyd Brown, individually and doing business as Showgirls(z) and Nikki D's Inc. and Ford Motor Company, Defendants, of whom Ford Motor Company, is Respondent. 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).
|
|
09:30 a.m. | |
5136 Cheryl Ann Burch, Appellant, v. Thomas Andrew Burch, Respondent. 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.
|
|
10:00 a.m. | |
5135 ORAL ARGUMENT CANCELLED - Nationwide Property and Casualty Insurance Company, Plaintiff, v. Charles Johnson, Emma Jean Johnson, George Leroy Argetsinger, IV, Paula L. McGuire and Jason R. McGuire, as Personal Representatives of the Estate of Jason D. McGuire, Defendants. 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.
|
|
Wednesday, September 21, 2011 | |
09:30 a.m. | |
5137 The State, Respondent, v. James A. Giles, Petitioner. 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.
|
|
10:00 a.m. | |
5139 Emerson Electric Co., and Affiliates, Appellant, v. South Carolina Department of Revenue, Respondent. 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.
|
|
10:30 a.m. | |
5138 The State, Respondent, v. Jerry Buck Inman, Appellant. 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.
|
|
Thursday, September 22, 2011 | |
09:30 a.m. | |
5069 Karen Dallis Carpenter, Petitioner, v. James Edward Burr, Frank C. Gavay, Cynthia A. Gesualdi and Susan S. Fisher, Respondents. 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.
|
|
10:00 a.m. | |
5140 The State, Respondent, v. Jennifer Rayanne Dykes, Appellant. 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.
|
|
10:30 a.m. | |
5141 In the Matter of Matthew Edward Davis, Respondent. 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.
|
Cases to be Submitted Without Oral Argument | |
Ex Parte: Waccamaw Publishers, Inc., Appellant. In re: State of South Carolina, Respondent, v. Robert Andrew Palmer, Respondent. |
|
Jay Bender, of Baker, Ravenel & Bender, L.L.P., of Columbia, for Appellant. Carla Faye Grabert-Lowenstein and Solicitor John Gregory Hembree, of Conway, for Respondent. |
|
Staffon Ray, Petitioner, v. State of South Carolina, Respondent. |
|
Appellate Defender LaNelle C. 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 Assistant Attorney General Brian Petrano, of Office of the Attorney General, of Columbia, for Respondent. |
|
David Harrell, Jr., Petitioner, v. State of South Carolina, Respondent. |
|
Joshua Kendrick, of Columbia, for Petitioner. Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott and Assistant Attorney General Mary S. Williams, of Office of the Attorney General, of Columbia, for Respondent. |