Assistant Appellate Defender Robert M. Dudek, of South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for Petitioner. Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles H. Richardson, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Robert M. Ariail, of Greenville, for Respondent.

This case involves the issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred by finding petitioner was not entitled to a directed verdict on the charge of strong armed robbery.

Michael A. Molony and Lea Kerrison, both of Young, Clement, Rivers & Tisdale, of Charleston, for Appellant. Fred David Butler, of South Carolina Public Service Commission, of Columbia, for Respondent. G. Trenholm Walker and Clayton B. McCullough, both of Pratt-Thomas, Epting & Walker, of Charleston, for Intervenor-Respondent.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster and Senior Assistant Attorney General James G. Bogle, Jr., both of Columbia, for the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. Jack T. Flom, of Jacksonville, Florida, pro se.

Andrew F. Lindemann and William H. Davidson, II, both of Davidson, Morrison & Lindemann, of Columbia, for Petitioner. Rodney M. Brown, of Younts, Alford, Brown & Goodson, of Fountain Inn, for Respondent.

Did the Court of Appeals err in not granting a JNOV or directed verdict in a riparian rights case involving the "Virginia Rule

Rodney M. Brown, of Younts, Alford, Brown & Goodson, of Fountain Inn, for Petitioner. Phillip E. Reeves and Jennifer D. Eubanks, both of Gallivan, White & Boyd, of Greenville, for Respondents.

Did the trial judge properly address the jury as to facts concerning Petitioner's collateral payment of medical bills?

Katherine Carruth Link, of Columbia; and South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for Petitioner-Respondent. Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles H. Richardson, Assistant Attorney General Melody J. Brown, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Barbara Morgan, of Aiken, for Respondent-Petitioner.

This case involves the admissibility of a probationer's incriminating statement to his probation agent.

Raymon E. Lark, Jr., of Austin, Lewis & Rogers, of Columbia, for Petitioner. Mark S. Barrow and William R. Calhoun, Jr., both of Sweeny, Wingate & Barrow, of Columbia, for Respondents Gaston Copper Recycling and Southwire Company in 96-CP-32-1016. Harold W. Jacobs, of Nexsen, Pruet, Jacobs & Pollard, of Columbia; and James H. Bratton, Jr., of Atlanta, GA, for Defendants Gaston Copper Recycling and Southwire Company in 96-CP-32-0968 and 96-CP-32-2573. C. Mitchell Brown, of Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, of Columbia; L. Walter Tollison, III, and Elizabeth M. McMillan, both of Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, of Greenville, for Defendants American Telephone and Telegraph Company and AT&T Nassau Metals Corporation.

This case involves the issue of whether the trial court erred in failing to apply the doctrine of equitable estoppel to bar the defense of the statute of limitations.

Frank R. Ellerbe, III, and Bonnie D. Shealy, both of Robinson, McFadden & Moore, of Columbia, for Appellants South Carolina Cable Television Association and Southeastern Competitive Carriers Association. Elliott F. Elam, Jr., of South Carolina Department of Consumer Affairs, of Columbia, for Appellant Philip S. Porter, Consumer Advocate for the State of South Carolina. Fred David Butler, of Columbia, for Respondent South Carolina Public Service Commission. M. John Bowen, Jr., Margaret M. Fox and Robert T. Bockman, all of McNair Law Firm, of Columbia, for Respondent South Carolina Telephone Association. Steven W. Hamm, of Richardson, Plowden, Carpenter & Robinson, of Columbia, for Respondent Verizon South, Inc.

This cases involves several challenges to the decisions of the South Carolina Public Service Commission in establishing and implementing the Universal Service Fund.

Disciplinary Counsel Henry B. Richardson and Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Barbara M. Seymour, both of Columbia, for the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. Harold M. Chandler, of Surfside Beach, pro se.

An attorney disciplinary matter which involves multiple allegations of misconduct.

Frank J. Bryan, of Floyd & Prevatte, of Surfside Beach; and J. Matthew Dove, of Murrells Inlet, for Appellant. Robert L. Widener, of McNair Law Firm, of Columbia; William W. Doar, Jr., of McNair Law Firm, of Georgetown; and Peter Murnaghan, of Murnaghan & Ferguson, of Tampa, Florida, for Respondent.

Does a contract between a paving company and the Department of Transportation limit the paving company’s liability to an injured motorist after the resurfacing work has been completed and accepted?

Dana M. Thye, of Office of the City Attorney, of Columbia, for Petitioner City of Columbia. Danny C. Crowe, of Turner, Padget, Graham and Laney, of Columbia, for Kevin Kirkpatrick, in his Individual Capacity. M. Baron Stanton, of Stanton Law Offices, of Columbia, for Respondent. William H. Davidson, II, and Kenneth P. Woodington, both of Davidson, Morrison & Lindemann, of Columbia, for Amicus Curiae South Carolina Municipal Association.

C. Rauch Wise, of Greenwood, for Appellant. Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles H. Richardson, Senior Assistant Attorney General Norman Mark Rapoport, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Robert M. Ariail, of Greenville, for Respondent.

Michael W. Battle and Victoria T. Vaught, both of Battle & Vaught, of Conway; and Douglas K. Muller, of Moore & Van Allen, of Charleston, for Appellant-Respondent. Howell V. Bellamy, Jr., and Douglas M. Zayicek, both of Bellamy, Rutenberg, Copeland, Epps, Gravely & Bowers, of Myrtle Beach, for Respondents-Appellants Resources Planning Corporation, Litchfield Plantation Company, Inc., and Louise P. Parsons. Robert L. Widener and Robert W. Dibble, Jr., both of McNair Law Firm, of Columbia, for Respondent-Appellant Litchfield Plantation Association, Inc., and all Respondents.

This appeal addresses numerous issues regarding developer's rights, restrictive covenants, and damages.

Samuel Darryl Harms, of Harms Law Firm, of Greenville, for Appellant. C. Mitchell Brown, Elizabeth H. Campbell and Jeffrey S. Patterson, all of Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, of Columbia; A.M. Quattlebaum, Jr., of Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, of Greenville; and Wes A. Kissinger, of Clarkson, Walsh, Rheney & Turner, of Greenville, for Respondent.

Are communications between an insured and her non-attorney insurance adjuster, and documents prepared by that adjuster, protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the work product privilege and therefore not subject to discovery?

Samuel Darryl Harms, of Harms Law Firm, of Greenville, for Appellant. Robert D. Moseley, Jr., and Paul E. Hammack, both of Leatherwood, Walker, Todd & Mann, of Greenville, for Respondent.

Do the Rules of Evidence permit an insurance adjuster to testify about his investigation of an accident and his conversations with the insured? Are the mental impressions of an adjuster, formed during the investigation, subject to discovery?